… Beornred succeeded to the kingdom, and held it a little while and unhappily. And in the same year Offa drove out Beornred and succeeded to the kingdom, and held it 39 winters[*]…
757 – 796 Offa
Son of Thingfrith, Thingfrith of Eanwulf, Eanwulf of Osmod, Osmod of Eowa.
The entry s.a. 757 in the ‘Continuation of Bede’ (a set of annals covering the period 732–766 found in a number of manuscripts of the Historia Ecclesiastica) states: “Offa, having put Beornred to flight, sought to gain the kingdom of the Mercians by bloodshed.”
Presumably Offa spent the early years of his reign consolidating his position in the Mercian provinces. He evidently had control of the sub-kingdom of the Hwicce from the beginning, but he may have faced opposition elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, Mercian overlordship of the south-Humbrian English kingdoms seems to have collapsed during the civil warfare that followed the murder of Æthelbald in 757. For the first seven years of his reign there is no sign of Offa’s influence elsewhere in the Heptarchy. Charters (S105, S34) suggest that he managed to establish himself as overlord of Egbert and Heahberht, co-kings of Kent, in 764.
Sussex was ruled by a number of kings. A charter (S49) shows Offa to be overlord of at least one South Saxon king, Osmund, in 770. Symeon of Durham (HR) reports that, in 771: “Offa, king of the Mercians, subdued by arms the people of the Hestingi [who gave their name to Hastings].” In a charter dated 772 (S108), three South Saxon individuals, who had in previous charters been accorded the title rex (king), appear, stripped of their royal status, with the title dux. It would seem, then, that, having mopped up the remaining resistance in 771, Offa proceeded to annex Sussex.
mercia201
The date of Offa’s annexation of Sussex, c.771, depends upon the authenticity of S108. Frank Stenton, in Chapter 7 (p.208, f.n.5) of his Anglo-Saxon England (Third Edition, 1971) writes:
This charter is only known from a thirteenth-century copy, and its text has been partly rewritten. But the portion of the witness-list where these names occur includes other names appropriate to the period, which no forger would have been likely to know, and it does not read like a fabrication.
However, in a note (n.33, p.227) to Chapter 8 of The Earliest English Kings (Revised Edition, 2000), D.P. Kirby comments: “but the untypical witness-list as it stands is surely highly suspect.” Within Chapter 8 proper (pp.138–9), Dr Kirby argues that: “in Sussex in 770–1, Offa’s involvement appears to have been limited and shortlived” and that it was: “probably a response to political instability among the South Saxons.” He suggests that, if S108 is, indeed, a fabrication:
… there is no evidence for Offa’s presence as a dominant factor in South Saxon affairs until the late 780s. Though Oslac dux of the South Saxons, and Ealdwulf, also dux of the South Saxons, may be identical to the kings of these names c.770, it was not until after c.789 (when Wihthun was bishop of the South Saxons) that Offa confirmed their grants to South Saxon churches [S1184, S1183] … The first clear indication that Offa had gained control of the South Saxons, therefore, comes only c.790, suggesting a Mercian annexation of the area in the late 780s.
Offa was apparently still in control of Kent in 774 (S110, S111), but a couple of years later he seems to have faced a rebellion. There was a battle between Mercian and Kentish forces at Otford, Kent, in 776. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle fails to record the outcome, but, since a number of subsequent Kentish charters (S35, dated 778; S36, dated 779; S38, dated 784) show Kentish kings ruling freely, it seems reasonable to speculate that Offa was defeated at Otford, and, for the time being, expelled from Kent.
Cynewulf, king of the West Saxons, had apparently taken advantage of the civil war in Mercia to recover territory previously lost to Æthelbald. He had also appropriated Bath and its surrounds from the territory of the Hwicce. Despite his appearance in the witness-list of a charter of Offa’s dated 772 (S108), Cynewulf appears to have retained his independence. In 779, as reported by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “Cynewulf and Offa fought around Bensington [Benson, Oxfordshire], and Offa took the town.” A charter issued after Offa’s death (S1258, of 798) states that Offa had: “seized from King Cynewulf the oft-mentioned monastery, Cookham [in Berkshire], and many other towns, and brought them under Mercian rule.” Bath returned to Mercian control – indeed, in 781, the bishop of the Hwicce (i.e. the bishop of Worcester) was obliged to do a deal with Offa, in which the king gained direct control of the monastery, its environs, and some additional land on the south side of the Avon that had previously been bought, by the bishop, from Cynewulf (S1257). Charters (S144, undated; S127, dated 787) also show that Offa took-over Surrey.
One charter (S38) shows that a King Ealhmund was ruling in Kent in 784. Several charters (S123, S125, S128, S129, S130, S131) make it very clear that from 785 Offa was in sole control of Kent – rather than acting as its overlord, he had annexed the kingdom.
London and the province of the Middle-Saxons (Middlesex and south-east Hertfordshire) had likely been detached from Essex by Offa’s predecessor, Æthelbald, and Offa retained them. There is no direct evidence of Offa’s control of the East Saxon heartland, but it is quite possible that he annexed that too, since East Saxon kings disappear from the record during his reign, only to reappear after his death.
In 786, Pope Hadrian I (772–795) sent two legates to Britain: “renewing amongst us the ancient friendship, and the catholic faith which St Gregory taught by blessed Augustine”, says Symeon of Durham (HRs.a. 786). A report of the trip has survived.[*] The legates were first greeted by Jænberht, archbishop of Canterbury. They then travelled to Offa’s court. There was a council attended by “Offa, king of the Mercians, and Cynewulf, king of the West Saxons”, in which the legates presented papal letters setting out the need for ecclesiastical reform. One of the legates toured Mercia and “parts of Britain” (by which Wales is probably meant). The other, meanwhile, went to Northumbria, where a synod was held, attended by Ælfwald, king of Northumbria, and Eanbald, archbishop of York. A number of new canons (ecclesiastical laws) presented by the legate were adopted. He returned to Mercia, and there was another synod, presided over by Offa and Jænberht, in which the reforms were also accepted.
The following year, 787: “there was a contentious synod at Cealchyth [Chelsea], and Archbishop Jænberht resigned a part of his bishopric, and Hygeberht was chosen by King Offa”, reports the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[*] 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), Hadrian’s successor.[*] The bishop of Lichfield (i.e. bishop of the Mercians), Hygeberht, was elevated to archbishop, and Jænberht, archbishop of Canterbury, had to cede his jurisdiction over the bishops of Worcester, Hereford, Leicester and Lindsey, all in Mercian territory, plus the bishops of Dommoc and Helmham, both in East Anglia, to the new archbishop of Lichfield. (Canterbury kept Winchester and Sherborne, in Wessex; Selsey in Sussex; Rochester in Kent, and London.)[*] The establishment of a Mercian archbishopric is not mentioned in the papal legates’ report, but presumably the issue had been discussed. At any rate, Pope Leo, writing to King Cenwulf, says that Pope Hadrian had agreed to the division, and sent the pallium to Hygeberht, because: “Offa, testified in his letter that it was the united wish and unanimous petition of you all, both on account of the vast size of your lands and the extension of your kingdom, and also for many more reasons and advantages.”[*] The eminent teacher, scholar and theologian, Alcuin, comments that the division: “was made, it seems, through a desire for power, not by any sensible consideration” (A49). When Jænberht died, in 792, Offa made sure his replacement was not going to be as obstructive to Mercian rule as his predecessor had evidently been – the new archbishop of Canterbury, Æthelheard, had previously been abbot of Louth, in Lindsey.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tags onto the end of its report of the synod at Chelsea: “and Ecgfrith was hallowed king.” Ecgfrith was Offa’s only son, and his consecration (presumably by Hygeberht) was a clear signal that he would also be Offa’s successor. It is possible that this was the first occasion in which the inauguration of an English ruler contained a Christian element – it is certainly the earliest recorded consecration. A letter (A46) written by Alcuin after Offa’s death, makes it plain that Offa killed-off Ecgfrith’s potential rivals for the throne: “you know well how much blood the father shed to secure the kingdom for his son.”
During the second half of the 8th century, English coinage (south of the Humber at any rate) underwent reforms which paralleled Frankish developments. The small, dumpy, silver coins – rarely carrying an inscription – known as ‘sceattas’ evolved into broader, thinner and heavier silver pennies which carried the name of the king and the moneyer.[*] Offa is the first Mercian king to be named on coins. He issued large numbers of his own pennies in Kent and East Anglia, as well as in Mercia (at London).The above ‘heavy’ (1.37g) penny dates from the end of Offa’s reign (c.792–796). The moneyer, OSMOD, named on the reverse, is believed to have been based at Canterbury, Kent. The ‘M’ symbol above OFFA REX stands for Merciorum (of the Mercians).Offa also minted coins in the name of his wife, Queen Cynethryth (+CYNEðRYð REGINA – ‘M’ in the centre). All are ‘light’ pennies (the example above is 1.03g), produced by the moneyer EOBA (whose name appears adjacent to a representation of the queen on the coin’s obverse), probably at Canterbury, pre-c.792 (at which time the ‘heavy’ pennies were introduced).A famous curiosity (above, courtesy British Museum) is the single known example of a gold coin (20mm dia. 4.28g) copied from a 774 dinar of, the Abbasid caliph, Al-Mansur, bearing, on the reverse, the legend OFFA REX (which is upside down relative to the Arabic). The coin’s purpose is uncertain.
The linking of the East Anglian bishops with the Mercian bishops, in the arrangements decided at Chelsea, is a pretty good clue that Offa was overlord of the East Angles by 787. In 794, however: “Offa, king of the Mercians, commanded the head of Æthelberht [king of the East Angles] to be struck off”.[*] Subsequently, Æthelberht was revered as a martyr, and the circumstances surrounding his death became shrouded in legend[*]. Æthelberht minted coins, so it seems reasonable to suggest that he had rebelled against Offa, and paid with his life.
Symeon of Durham (HR) reports that, in 792, the Northumbrian king, Æthelred: “took as his queen Ælfflæd, daughter of Offa, king of the Mercians, at Catterick, on the 3rd of the Kalends of October [29th September].”[*] There is, though, no evidence to suggest that Offa had any authority in Northumbria.
Cynewulf, the West Saxon king, was killed in 786. He was succeeded by one Beorhtric, who married Offa’s daughter, Eadburh, in 789. Reporting the death of Beorhtric’s successor, Egbert, s.a. 836 (actually, 839), the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says: “before he [Egbert] was king, Offa, king of the Mercians, and Beorhtric, king of the West Saxons, had driven him from the land of the English into the land of the Franks, for 3 years; and Beorhtric assisted Offa because he had his daughter for his queen.”[*] A margin note in Manuscript F of the Chronicle identifies Egbert’s father as Ealhmund, the king of Kent who, it appears, had been ruling immediately before Offa annexed the kingdom in 784/5. Perhaps Egbert had taken refuge in Wessex, with Cynewulf, at the time of that annexation. Though there were clearly close links between Offa and Beorhtric, opinion seems to be divided whether or not this went as far as Beorhtric recognizing Offa as his overlord.
Egbert was not the only Englishman to find refuge from Offa with the Franks – in a letter to Offa, Charles the Great (better known as Charlemagne), king of the Franks,[*] refers to the “exiles who have sought sanctuary with us” (A40). Presumably this was a source of tension between the two kings, though, writing in 790, Alcuin apparently refers to them as “old friends” (A10). In fact, Alcuin was referring to a “quarrel between old friends” that was underway as he wrote. Elsewhere (A31), he comments that: “A quarrel has recently arisen between King Charles and King Offa, and fuel has been devilishly heaped upon the fire, so that on both sides traders are forbidden to sail.” Alcuin, though, nowhere mentions the cause of the dispute. It seems that, around 789, Charlemagne’s son, Charles, had proposed that he should marry one of Offa’s daughters. Offa, however, insisted that the marriage could only go ahead if Charlemagne’s daughter, Bertha, married his own son, Ecgfrith. Charlemagne took offence and ordered that his ports be closed to English traders.[*] At some point, normal relations were restored. Indeed, in the previously mentioned letter from Charlemagne to Offa (A40), written in 796, Charlemagne discusses the provisions of a trade agreement between himself and Offa: “Charles, by God’s grace king of the Franks and Lombards and patrician of Rome, to the honourable king of Mercia, his dear brother Offa … You also wrote to us about merchants. It is our will and command that they have full protection in our kingdom to transact their lawful business according to ancient practice. If they are anywhere unjustly treated, they should appeal to us or our judges and we will then see that justice is done. So too with our merchants: if they are unjustly treated within your jurisdiction, they must appeal to your just judgement, so that no disorders may anywhere arise between our subjects.” He later takes the opportunity to complain to Offa that cloaks recently exported by the English were not of the customary length.
Offa’s campaigns against the Britons of Wales are sketchily recorded in the Annales Cambriae:
[760] A battle between the Britons and the Saxons, that is the battle of Hereford …
[778] The devastation of the South Britons by Offa.
[784] The devastation of the Britons by Offa in the summer.
[795] [In C-text only] The devastation of Rheinwg by Offa.[*]
An inscription on the remains of a free-standing cross, which stands near Llangollen, records the Welsh reconquest of territory from “the English”, i.e. Mercia: “It was Eliseg who united the inheritance of Powys … however through force … from the power of the English … land with his sword by fire(?).” The cross (now known as Eliseg’s Pillar) was erected by Cyngen (Old Welsh: Concenn), king of Powys (d.854), in memory of his great-grandfather, Elise (Eliseg), who would seem to have flourished around the mid-8th century. It is against this background of Mercian–Welsh hostilities that Offa undertook construction of the massive earthwork that bears his name: Offa’s Dyke.
… Offa, the magnificent king of the Mercians, having nearly completed his most noble monastery after the discovery of the blessed Alban,[*] died, according to the opinion of many, in the town of Offley [in Hertfordshire], and his body is said to have been conveyed to the town of Bedford, and to have been buried in a royal manner in a certain chapel outside the city, situated on the bank of the river Ouse. It is reported by nearly all the people of that neighbourhood, even to the present day, that the aforesaid chapel, from decay and the violence of that river, was precipitated, together with the king’s tomb, into the stream; and that the sepulchre is now seen by bathers in the summer time deep beneath the waters, but though it has been sought with the greatest diligence, yet, as if by a fatality, it cannot be found.
… Offa, the most potent king of the Mercians, died, after a reign of 39 years; to him succeeded in the kingdom his son Ecgfrith, who, in the same year, was cut off by an untimely death.
Ecgfrith was seemingly on good terms with his brother-in-law, Beorhtric, king of the West Saxons, who persuaded him to return land to Malmesbury Abbey that had previously been seized by Offa (S149):
… I, Ecgfrith, king of the Mercians, in the first year of our reign granted by God, at the request of Beorhtric, king of the West Saxons, and Archbishop Æthelheard [of Canterbury], have returned to Abbot Cuthbert and to the brethren of the monastery of Malmesbury land of 30 hides in the place that is called Purton [in Wiltshire], on the eastern side of the wood that is called Braydon, for the remission of my sins and for the repose of the soul of my father, Offa, which while he was alive he took from them.
Ecgfrith died after a reign of only 141 days (ASCs.a. 755). Alcuin wrote (A46) to a Mercian acquaintance:
The noble youth did not die through his own sins, I believe; it was the vengeance of the father’s blood that fell upon the son. For you know well how much blood the father shed to secure the kingdom for his son. It proved the undoing, not the making of his reign.
In another letter (A47), to Ecgfrith’s successor, Cenwulf:
Never forget the fine character of your noble predecessor [i.e. Offa], his modest way of life and his concern to reform the life of a Christian people. You should adhere scrupulously to the good arrangements he made in the kingdom God has given you, but do not follow him in any cruel or greedy act. For it was not without reason that his noble son lived so short a time after his father. Sons often receive the punishment their fathers earned.
Offa had eliminated close relatives whom he believed could prevent his own son, Ecgfrith, from succeeding him on the throne,[*] so, when Ecgfrith died after ruling for less than five months, it was a distant kinsman, Cenwulf, who assumed power. According to his pedigree, preserved in the so-called Anglian Collection, Cenwulf was descended from Cenwalh, an otherwise unknown brother of Penda.
It appears that Cenwulf soon had his mettle tested by the Welsh. The Annales Cambriae(A-text), providing no detail, ends the annal recording Offa’s death with the simple remark: “and the battle of Rhuddlan.” Two years later (i.e. in 798), the Annales, rather more helpfully, note that: “Caradog king of Gwynedd is killed by the Saxons.” During this same two year period, Cenwulf also had to contend with a rebellion in Kent.
Offa had annexed Kent in 784/5, but in the aftermath of his death in 796, Eadberht Præn, who had taken refuge with Charlemagne, king of the Franks, during Offa’s reign, and who had been a priest, returned to Kent and managed to establish himself on the throne. The incumbent archbishop of Canterbury, Æthelheard, was Offa’s man – when Æthelheard’s predecessor, Jænberht, died in 792, Offa had made sure that his replacement was someone sympathetic to himself – and, apparently fearing for his safety under Eadberht’s regime, he fled Kent.
Cenwulf entered into correspondence with Pope Leo III (795–816) regarding the organisation of the Church in England. Under Offa, 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, in Mercia. Cenwulf informed Leo that Offa had been motivated by “enmity he had formed against the venerable Jænberht and the people of Kent”, and told him “our bishops and certain most learned men among us” objected to the arrangement, since it contravened the structure of the Church outlined by Pope Gregory I (590–604). Cenwulf, in effect, proposed that, as was originally intended by Pope Gregory, there should be two archbishop’s seats: York in the North and London (not Canterbury) in the South. (London was, of course, firmly in Mercian hands.) In response, Pope Leo defended his predecessor’s agreement to the division of the archbishop of Canterbury’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. However, Leo had been informed about the situation in Kent, by Archbishop Æthelheard, and he denounced Eadberht Præn (calling him: “that apostate cleric who mounted the throne”) and excommunicated him – expressing the view that, if necessary, he should be expelled “from his most wicked rule”.[*]
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that, in 798: “Cenwulf, king of the Mercians, ravaged the people of Kent and the people of the Marsh [i.e. Romney Marsh], and took Præn their king, and led him bound into Mercia.[*]” According to Symeon of Durham (HRs.a. 798) and an addition in the margin of Manuscript F of the Chronicle, Cenwulf had Eadberht’s eyes put out and his hands cut off.[*] Cenwulf installed his brother, Cuthred, on the throne of Kent.
Coin evidence – pennies, minted in the name of Eadwald – suggests that the East Angles also enjoyed a short period of independence from Mercia after Offa’s death, before Cenwulf regained control. It is possible that Essex had been annexed by Offa, but after his death the East Saxon ruling dynasty reappears – albeit under Mercian overlordship.[*] Sussex had certainly been annexed by Offa, and it seems to have remained under direct Mercian rule after his death.
Symeon of Durham (HR) s.a. 801:
At this time, Eardwulf, king of the Northumbrians, led an army against Cenwulf, king of the Mercians, because he had given an asylum to his enemies. He [Cenwulf] collected an army, and led many forces from other provinces with him. When there had been a long campaign between them, they finally made peace, by the advice of the bishops and chiefs of the English on either side ... An agreement of sure peace was made between them, which both kings confirmed by an oath on the gospel of Christ, calling God as a witness and surety, that as long as they retained this life, and bore the crown of government, a firm peace and true friendship should exist between them, unshaken and inviolate.
When, in (probably) 806, Eardwulf was expelled from Northumbria, he found refuge with Charlemagne – who had been crowned emperor by Pope Leo on Christmas Day 800. In a letter to Charlemagne, Leo indicates that he suspected Cenwulf was one of those responsible for Eardwulf’s expulsion. Eardwulf returned to Northumbria in 808, escorted by papal and imperial envoys.
In 2001 a metal-detectorist found a unique gold coin (21mm dia. 4.33g) by the River Ivel, at Biggleswade in Bedfordshire. It has been identified as a ‘mancus’. The obverse reads
COENVVLF REX M (Cenwulf, king of the Mercians), the reverse: DE VICO LVNDONIAE (from the wic of London). In 2006 it was bought for £357,832 (at the time, a record for a British coin) by the British Museum.
In 802, Beorhtric, king of the West Saxons, died. His wife was Offa’s daughter, Eadburh, and, according to a tale related by Asser, biographer of Alfred the Great, she accidentally poisoned her husband[*]. Beorhtric’s place was taken by Egbert, whom Offa and Beorhtric had previously driven into exile with the Franks. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that: “Egbert succeeded to the kingdom of the West Saxons; and that same day, Ealdorman Æthelmund rode over [the border] from the Hwicce at Cynemæresford [Kempsford, Gloucestershire]; then Ealdorman Weohstan met him with the Wiltshire men; and there was a great fight, and both the ealdormen were slain, and the Wiltshire men got the victory.”[*]
Meanwhile, Æthelheard, archbishop of Canterbury, had 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 named 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 formally abolished.[*] (Presumably, since he had control of Kent, Cenwulf saw no reason to pursue his plans to move the archbishop’s seat from Canterbury to London.)
Æthelheard died in 805, and was succeeded by one Wulfred. Eadberht Præn was evidently still being held captive at this time. William of Malmesbury writes about: “the monastery of Winchcombe [in Gloucestershire], which was built by Cenwulf king of the Mercians, a piece of munificence on a scale inconceivable in our own times. He had the church dedicated by thirteen bishops, foremost among them Wulfred archbishop of Canterbury. There, during the formalities of the dedication, and in the presence of ten duces, he freed at the altar the king of Kent, whom he had lately made captive by right of war.” (GP IV §156). Elsewhere (GR I §95), William notes that: “Cuthred, whom he [Cenwulf] had made king over the people of Kent, was present to applaud this act of royal munificence.”[*]
Cuthred died in 807. Thereafter, Cenwulf ruled Kent directly – in a charter dated 809 (S164) he is titled “king of the Mercians and of the province of Kent”.
In the later years of his reign, Cenwulf turned his attention, once more, to Wales. The Annales Cambriae (B-text) indicates it was in 816 that: “Saxons invaded the mountains of Eryri [Snowdonia] and the kingdom of Rhufoniog.” The following year, a battle on Anglesey is recorded, which may have been part of the same campaign. A year later (i.e. 818): “Cenwulf devastated the regions of Dyfed.” It seems likely that Cenwulf was planning further action against the Welsh when, in 821, he died at Basingwerk (says Gaimar), at the northern end of Wat’s Dyke.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle simply states: “Cenwulf, king of the Mercians died, and Ceolwulf succeeded to the kingdom.” By the end of the 11th century, however, a yarn had been conjured up in which Cenwulf left the kingdom to his seven year old son, called ‘Kenelm’, who was soon murdered on the orders of his sister, Cwenthryth, who entertained the notion of ruling in her own right[*].
Ceolwulf succeeded his brother, Cenwulf, in 821.[*] Cenwulf had quarrelled with Wulfred, archbishop of Canterbury, and suspended him from duty. Ceolwulf, must have come to an agreement with Wulfred by 17th September 822, at which date the archbishop officiated at his consecration (recorded in S186).
William of Malmesbury declares (GR I §96) that, after Cenwulf: “the kingdom of the Mercians declining, and if I may use the expression, nearly lifeless, produced nothing worthy of historical commemoration.” Actually, Mercia did have a moment of glory that William was unaware of. Indicating the year 822, the Annales Cambriae state: “The fortress of Degannwy [in Gwynedd] is destroyed by the Saxons and they took the kingdom of Powys into their own control.”[*]
A later charter (S1435, of 825) depicts a disturbed state of affairs during Ceolwulf’s reign: “After the death of Cenwulf, king of the Mercians, many disagreements and innumerable disputes arose among leading persons of every kind – kings, bishops, and ministers of the churches of God – concerning all manner of secular affairs”. In 823, sometime after 26th May, on which date he granted land to Archbishop Wulfred in exchange for a gold and silver vessel (S187), Ceolwulf was overthrown. His replacement was one Beornwulf, whose pedigree is not known.[*]
Ceolwulf had ruled Kent directly – in his two charters (S186; S187) he is styled “king of the Mercians and also of the people of Kent”. Beornwulf would appear to have placed a kinsman, Baldred, on the Kentish throne.[*]
From their recent success against the Welsh, it can be judged that the Mercian army was a formidable force. It must have been with a high degree of confidence, therefore, that, in 825, Beornwulf marched against the West Saxon king, Egbert. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that battle was joined at a place called Ellendun (generally identified with Wroughton, Wiltshire):
… and Egbert gained the victory, and a great slaughter was there made. 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 the same year the king of the East Angles, and the nation, sought Egbert for peace and as protector, from dread of the Mercians; and in this same year the East Angles slew Beornwulf, king of the Mercians.
… [Beornwulf] collecting a large army, entered their [the East Angles] territories in a hostile manner, and began to put all the chief inhabitants to death. Their king opposed him with his forces, and joining battle, slew him and almost all his army; his kinsman Ludeca succeeded him in the kingdom.[*]
Although all the above events – Beornwulf’s defeat at Ellendun, the ejection of Baldred, the submission of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex to Egbert, and the East Anglian rebellion against Mercia – are consigned to a single annal, it seems that they actually spread over two years. There is a charter (S1267) which indicates that Beornwulf’s authority was still recognised in Kent on 27th March 826. It would appear, then, that Baldred was expelled from Kent and Beornwulf was killed during 826.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle simply states that, in 827, Ludeca “was slain, and his 5 ealdormen with him”, but, once again, Florence of Worcester adds detail:
Ludeca, king of the Mercians, mustered his forces and led an army into the province of the East Angles, for the purpose of taking vengeance for the death of King Beornwulf, his predecessor. He was quickly met by the natives and their king, who in a severe battle slew him and five of his ealdormen, and very many of his troops, and put to flight the remainder.[*]
In fact, Florence’s report may well represent nothing more than guesswork.[*] It is, though, widely believed that Ludeca was killed by the East Angles in a final, successful, attempt to free themselves from Mercian domination.[*] Coin evidence suggests that the East Anglian king who liberated his country from the Mercians was named Athelstan.[*]
827 – 829 & 830 – 839/40 Wiglaf
Wiglaf, of unknown pedigree, acquired the Mercian throne following the deaths of his predecessors – Beornwulf in 826 and Ludeca in 827 – at the hands of the East Angles.[*]
In 829 Egbert, king of Wessex, expelled Wiglaf and ruled Mercia himself.[*] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a West Saxon product) trumpets: “King Egbert subdued the kingdom of the Mercians, and all that was south of the Humber, and he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda.” Having taken control of Mercia, Egbert marched onwards to threaten the Northumbrians, and, at Dore (near Sheffield), on the Mercia/Northumbria border, secured their submission. The following year (830), the Chronicle reports that: “Wiglaf again obtained the kingdom of the Mercians … and in the same year King Egbert led an army against the North Welsh [i.e. the Welsh proper, rather than the Cornish Britons], and he reduced them to humble obedience.”[*]
The mechanism by which Wiglaf recovered his throne is not recorded. If it was by force of arms, it hardly seems likely that Egbert would be campaigning against the Welsh later in the same year, and, indeed, some scholars suggest that Egbert’s campaign against the Welsh, in fact, preceded Wiglaf’s restoration.[*] According to Henry of Huntingdon (HA IV, 29): “King Egbert, moved by pity, conceded to Wiglaf that he should hold the kingdom of Mercia under him.”[*] Wiglaf’s charters (S188; S190), however, indicate that he ruled independently.[*] Further, an undated charter of Ceolberht, bishop of London (S1791), features a “minister of Wiglaf, king of the Mercians” called Sigeric, who is given the title “king of the East Saxons”, which raises the possibility that Wiglaf, for a time anyway, managed to re-establish Mercian overlordship of Essex. On the other hand, it may well be that Wiglaf didn’t resume the production of coins after his restoration, which could be because Egbert did not allow him to. Perhaps Egbert, realizing he had overstretched himself, was obliged to reach an accommodation with Wiglaf, which enabled the latter to resume his reign as, to all intents and purposes, an independent ruler.[*]
The year of Wiglaf’s death is a little fuzzy. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions neither his nor, his successor, Beorhtwulf’s death. The Chronicle entry s.a. 838 states:
In this year Ealdorman Hereberht was slain by heathen men, and many men with him among the Marsh-dwellers [i.e. Romney Marsh]; and again, in the same year, in Lindsey, and in East Anglia, and among the people of Kent, many men were slain by the [heathen] army.[*]
Florence of Worcester, also s.a. 838, tags onto his Latin version of that Chronicle annal: “Wiglaf, king of the Mercians, died, and Beorhtwulf succeeded him in the kingdom.” By this time, the Chronicle is three years behind true date, so certainly the part of Florence’s annal 838 that is sourced from the Chronicle should be dated 841, but that does not necessarily apply to the notice of Wiglaf’s death. A king-list preserved amongst the material that precedes Florence’s work proper (and also by William of Malmesbury: GR I §96), assigns Wiglaf and Beorhtwulf a reign of 13 years each, and Beorhtwulf’s successor, Burgred, is assigned 22 years. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also gives Burgred a reign length of 22 years. Both the Chronicle and Florence date the end of Burgred’s reign 874, so, working backwards 35 years from there, Wiglaf died in 839. However, working forwards 13 years, from Wiglaf’s first accession in 827 (the king-list evidently takes no notice of the year when he was expelled), he died in 840.
mercia202
A Mercian king-list in a Worcester cartulary from the early-11th century – known as the Liber Wigornensis, which is bound together with, the late-11th century, Hemming’s Cartulary in British Library MS Cotton Tiberius A xiii (the king list is on folio 114v) – gives Wiglaf’s reign in two parts: 2 (ii) years for the first, 5 (v) for the second, with 1 (i) year allotted to the West Saxon king Egbert in-between. Beorhtwulf is granted 13 (xiii) years, and 25 (xxv) years are assigned to Burgred. 5 years is too short for Wiglaf’s second reign, and 25 years is too long for Burgred’s reign. Roman numerals are prone to copying errors, so it is possible that x (10) has been erroneously transmitted as v (5) for Wiglaf’s second reign, and xxii (22) transmitted as xxv (25) for Burgred’s reign, which would conveniently bring this list into agreement with the list presented in the material prefixed to Florence’s work and by William of Malmesbury.
Florence has the same chronological dislocation as the Chronicle. Both sources place Wiglaf’s accession two years too early, i.e in 825 instead of 827. Florence is, therefore, being consistent in placing Wiglaf’s death in 838 (13 years later than 825). However, he then places Beorhtwulf’s death (and Burgred’s succession) in 852, which is inconsistent with a reign of 13 years. (Charters confirm that Burgred began to rule in 852.)
Incidentally, it is a feature of the material prefixed to Florence’s work that reign lengths are typically expressed as ordinal numbers – for instance: “King Wiglaf died in the 13th year of his reign”, whilst William of Malmesbury (GR I §96) states that Wiglaf: “reigned thirteen years”. Of course, it is extremely unlikely that a king’s reign would be an exact number of years. If reign lengths were simply rounded-off, then, plainly, significant errors could accumulate when several reigns were added together. It is clear from the Chronicle that years were counted in terms of ‘winters’, so it seems a reasonable hypothesis that it was the number of midwinters (Christmases in Christian times) that passed whilst a king was ruling that were recorded in the king-list, which means that reign lengths can be manipulated arithmetically without error.
According to a charter (S192), Beorhtwulf was established on the throne of Mercia before Easter (i.e. 28th March) 840.
839/40 – 852 Beorhtwulf
Beorhtwulf’s descent is not known, but he may be from the same family as previous Mercian kings whose names begin with ‘B’: Beornred (757) and Beornwulf (823–826).
England had suffered Viking raids since at least the 790s.[*] At first, though clearly an irritant, they must, for the most part at least, have been relatively small scale and containable. From 835, however – heralded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s announcement: “In this year heathen men ravaged Sheppey” – Viking activity ratcheted-up to the point where the survival of any Anglo-Saxon kingdom was in doubt. London was apparently first targeted in 842, at which time: “there was a great slaughter at London, and at Quentovic, and at Rochester.” Then, in 851: “came three-and-a-half hundred ships to the mouth of the Thames, and stormed Canterbury and London, and put to flight Beorhtwulf, king of the Mercians, with his army, and then went south over the Thames into Surrey”. The “heathen army” was roundly defeated by Æthelwulf, king of the West Saxons.[*]
Beorhtwulf and Æthelwulf issued stylistically related coins, and even shared moneyers. It seems reasonable to suppose that the Viking menace engendered a spirit of co-operation between the Mercians and the West Saxons.[*] Perhaps the final transfer of the often disputed border territory of Berkshire to Wessex is another manifestation of this entente cordiale.
There was evidently, however, dynastic rivalry within Mercia. Florence of Worcester, s.a. 849, gives a brief account of the “martyrdom” of one Wigstan (St Wistan or St Wystan):
On the eve of Pentecost, being the Kalends of June [1st June], Beorhtfrith, son of Beorhtwulf, king of the Mercians, unjustly put to death his kinsman, St Wigstan. He was the grandson of two of the Mercian kings; for his father, Wigmund, was the son of King Wiglaf, and his mother, Ælfflæd, was the daughter of king Ceolwulf. His corpse was carried to the monastery of Repton, which was then very celebrated, and was buried in the mausoleum of his grandfather, King Wiglaf. But miracles from heaven were not wanting at the place of his martyrdom; for, from the spot where he was slain in his innocence, a column of light shot up to heaven, and remained visible to the inhabitants of that place for thirty days.
mercia203
Actually, in the primary manuscript of Florence’s Chronicon ex Chronicis (Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 157) the above story is in a red-bordered box in the margin, with a graphic indication that it belongs s.a. 849. The story also appears in the miscellany that precedes the Chronicon ex Chronicis. Here, though, the date of Wigstan’s death is not given, but Wiglaf’s queen, Wigmund’s mother, is named (Cynethryth), and so is Beorhtwulf’s queen, Beorhtfrith’s mother (Sæthryth).
William of Malmesbury incorporates the gist of the story into both GR (II §212) and GP (IV §161). An elaborated version appears in a Latin ‘Life’ of Wigstan, produced by Thomas of Marlborough, abbot of Evesham (d.1236). (Evesham was where Wigstan’s bones eventually ended up.) Wigstan is said to have been the heir to his deceased father’s, i.e. Wigmund’s, kingdom, but, being more interested in religious matters, he allowed his mother, Queen Ælfflæd, and chief-men of the kingdom to rule on his behalf. Beorhtfrith, in a plan designed to secure the throne for himself, determined to marry Ælfflæd. Wigstan, however, objected, on account of Beorhtfrith being a kinsman of his father and his own godfather, preventing the union. Beorhtfrith lured Wigstan to a meeting, at which he was killed – Beorhtfrith smashed him on the top of the head with his sword-hilt. As a result, by way of divine retribution, Beorhtfrith immediately became mad.
Wigstan’s father, Wigmund, is identified as “the king’s son” in the witness-list of a land-grant of Wiglaf’s dated 831 (S188), but, apart from this yarn, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever became king himself.
Florence of Worcester, s.a. 852: “Beorhtwulf, king of the Mercians, died, and Burgred succeeded him in the kingdom.”[*]
852 – 874 Burgred
The tendency of Anglo-Saxon families to favour alliterative names makes it possible that Burgred was a relative of his predecessor, Beorhtwulf.
The impression that, during Beorhtwulf’s rule, the Mercians and West Saxons had entered into a new age of co-operation seems to be born out by the events of 853:
… Burgred, king of the Mercians, sent messengers to beseech Æthelwulf, king of the West Saxons,[*] to come and help him in reducing to his sway the midland Britons [i.e. the Welsh], who dwell between Mercia and the western sea, and who were struggling against him beyond measure. So without delay, King Æthelwulf, on receipt of the embassy, moved his army, and advanced with King Burgred against Britain [i.e. Wales], and immediately upon his entrance he ravaged it, and reduced it under subjection to Burgred. This being done, he returned home.
… In the same year also, after Easter, Æthelwulf, king of the West Saxons, gave his daughter [Æthelswith] to Burgred, king of the Mercians, as his queen, and the marriage was celebrated in princely wise at the royal vill of Chippenham.
Burgred evidently campaigned successfully in Wales in 865 also. The Annals of Ulster report: “The Britons were driven from their land by the Saxons and were placed in bondage in Maen Chonain.” The, so-called, Three Fragments, also an Irish source, reports the same event: “the Saxons came into British Gwynedd, and the Saxons drove the Britons out of the country.”[*] The term ‘the Saxons’ is being used in a generic sense – meaning ‘the English’. Presumably, since it isn’t mentioned by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or its derivatives, the Mercians carried out this campaign without any West Saxon assistance.[*]
In the autumn of 865 “a great heathen army” of Danes landed in East Anglia, where they established their winter quarters. The East Angles “made peace with” (i.e. bought off), the Danes. In the autumn of 866, “the army” moved on to Northumbria, captured York and made it their base. Having killed two Northumbrian kings, the Danes installed a compliant Englishman on the throne. In the autumn of 867, they turned their attention to Mercia.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that:
… the same army went into Mercia to Nottingham[*], and there took up winter quarters. And Burgred, king of the Mercians, with his witan, asked Æthelred, king of the West Saxons, and Alfred his brother, to help him fight against the army. And they went, with a force of West Saxons, into Mercia as far as Nottingham, and there found the army in the works [i.e. fortress], and there besieged them.[*] But there was no hard battle there; and the Mercians made peace with the army.[*]
During 868, according to Asser (§29), Alfred married: “a noble Mercian lady, daughter of Æthelred, surnamed Mucil, ealdorman of the Gaini.[*] The mother of this lady was named Eadburh, of the royal stock of the king of the Mercians, whom I often saw with my own eyes a few years before her death.” In the autumn of 868, the Danes returned to York. V ►
The following autumn (i.e. of 869): “the army rode over Mercia into East Anglia”, notes the Chronicle. An interpolation in Manuscript E (the Peterborough Manuscript) reports that the Danes:
… destroyed all the monasteries which they came to. At that same time they came to Medeshamstede [Peterborough], burned and broke, slew the abbot and the monks, and all that they found there; then made that which was ere full rich, that it was reduced to nothing.[*]
Having killed the king of the East Angles “and subdued all that land”, in late-870 “the army” moved on to Wessex. There was a great deal of fighting between the Danes and the West Saxons during the following year, but, despite being reinforced by “a great summer-force” and generally having the upper-hand, the Danes failed to land a knockout punch on the West Saxons.
Having agreed, for a price, to leave Wessex, in the autumn of 871 the Danes set up winter quarters at London: “and then the Mercians made peace with the army.”[*] In 872 the Northumbrians rebelled against their Viking regime, and so in the autumn of that year: “the army went into Northumbria” (ASC MS A, B and C only). V ►
The Northumbrians had expelled their Viking-appointed king and the archbishop of York – the two exiles found refuge with Burgred – but Northumbrian affairs are somewhat cryptically recorded, and the situation there is not clear.[*] “The army” was apparently only in Northumbria a few weeks, since it was back in Mercian territory before the end of 872.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “the army … took winter quarters at Torksey in Lindsey; and then the Mercians made peace with the army.[*]” A year later (i.e. in autumn 873), the Danes, as usual, moved to new quarters:
… the army went from Lindsey to Repton, and there took winter quarters, and [in 874] drove the king, Burgred, over sea, 22 winters after he had obtained the kingdom, and they subdued all the land; and he went to Rome, and there settled, and his body lies in St Mary’s church, in the English Quarter.[*]
874 – 879 ? Ceolwulf II
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that, having driven out Burgred in 874:
… they [the Danes] gave the kingdom of the Mercians to the custody of Ceolwulf, a foolish king’s thegn;[*] and he swore oaths to them, and gave hostages, that it should be ready for them on whatever day they wished to have it; and that he would be ready in his own person, and with all who would follow him, at the service of the army.
In the autumn of 874, The Danes divided their forces:
… the three kings, Guthrum, Oscetel, and Anwend, went from Repton to Cambridge with a great army, and sat there one year.
A “part of the army”, however, moved permanently to Northumbria. V ►
The Chronicle disparagingly describes Ceolwulf II as “a foolish king’s thegn”, but he may well have been from the same family as, the earlier Mercian kings, Cenwulf (796–821) and his brother Ceolwulf I (821–823). The Chronicle also says Ceolwulf II was a Viking puppet, but his charters (S215 and S216, both dated 875) show him acting independently – he is styled ‘king of the Mercians’, and they are witnessed by Mercian bishops and ealdormen. Furthermore, he and Alfred, king of the West Saxons, collaborated in the production of coinage. So, at the time, Ceolwulf’s rule would appear to have been regarded as legitimate in both Mercia and Wessex.
In the autumn of 875 the “great army” that had spent a year at Cambridge invaded Wessex. The Danes’ forces were unable to gain the upper-hand, and after suffering the loss of 120 ships in a storm off Swanage, they were obliged to come to terms with King Alfred. In late-summer 877 they left Wessex:
… in harvest-time the army went into the Mercians’ land, and divided some of it [amongst themselves], and gave some to Ceolwulf.
The Danes had not, however, abandoned the idea of conquering the West Saxons. In early January 878, “the army”, evidently led by the previously mentioned Guthrum, launched a surprise attack on Wessex from Gloucester. After initial success, the Danes were decisively defeated by King Alfred and forced to accept his terms. In the autumn of 878, Guthrum’s forces withdrew to Cirencester, in Mercian territory. At the same time a fresh Viking fleet arrived in the Thames. Asser (§58) seems to imply that this new “army of pagans” met-up with Guthrum’s army before settling down to overwinter at Fulham. If there were ever plans for these two armies to mount a concerted attack on Wessex, they came to nought. A year later, i.e. in the autumn of 879, the Chronicle notes that:
… the army [i.e. Guthrum’s army] went from Cirencester to East Anglia, and occupied and divided the land. And in the same year the army, which had before sat down at Fulham, went over sea to Ghent in the land of the Franks …
The end of Ceolwulf’s reign is not chronicled, but in a Mercian king-list from Worcester (British Library MS Cotton Tiberius A xiii, folio 114v, early-11th century) he is given a 5 year reign, by which token he ceased to rule in 879.[*]
In fact the entry is dated two years earlier than this by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Between 754 and 845 there is a chronological dislocation in all extant manuscripts of the Chronicle – hence it must have been in their common antecedent. The majority of entries up to 828 are placed two years too early. From then until 845 the error is increased to three years. (It is a peculiarity of Manuscript B that after 652 the year-number is generally omitted.)
Highlighted section in Manuscripts D and E only.
Dux (plural: duces), in the Late Roman Empire, was the title of a high-ranking military commander, and is the source of the modern English word ‘duke’. The equivalent in Anglo-Saxon terminology was ‘ealdorman’, from which the modern term ‘alderman’ is derived.
Hwiccean territory roughly corresponded to Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and western Warwickshire.
It used to be thought that Ealfrith rex, who witnessed a confirmation Offa appended to a South Saxon charter (S1183) sometime after 772, was Aldfrith, king of Lindsey (northern Lincolnshire), whose genealogy appears in the Anglian Collection. It is now, however, generally accepted that Offa’s son, Ecgfrith, is the intended rex of the charter. It would seem more likely that Aldfrith flourished in the late-7th/early-8th century. The rule of the last known regulus of the Magonsæte (Herefordshire and southern Shropshire), Mildfrith son of Merewalh, had ended by 740.
Cookham had previously been taken from the West Saxons by Æthelbald, and then taken back by Cynewulf in the aftermath of Æthelbald’s murder.
As detailed elsewhere on this page, the majority of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entries at this time are placed two years too early. As a result, the battle of Otford appears s.a. 774, except in Manuscript A, where it is placed s.a. 773.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, being generally two years adrift, places this notice s.a. 785 instead of s.a. 787.
Superimposed onto this dislocated framework, in Manuscripts D and E, is a set of Northern annals also employed in the Historia Regum (732–802), traditionally attributed to Symeon of Durham. The notice of the papal legates’ visit, correctly placed s.a. 786 in HR, is appended to the entry s.a. 785 in Manuscripts D and E, so that in these manuscripts (also, Manuscript E’s bilingual abridged relative, Manuscript F) the “synod at Cealchyth” is presented as occurring before the legates’ visit. (Manuscripts A, B and C do not record the legates’ visit at all.)
The marriage of Æthelred and Ælfflæd is also recorded in Manuscripts D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is correctly placed s.a. 792, along with another item of Northumbrian interest. However, the event that precedes these Northern entries, the beheading of the East Anglian king, Æthelberht, actually belongs in 794.
The pallium: a white, scarf-like, vestment worn by the pope, and bestowed by him on archbishops as a symbol of delegated papal authority.
William of Malmesbury (GR I §88) has preserved King Cenwulf’s letter to Pope Leo. In English translation, from the original Latin, it is Item 204 in English Historical Documents c. 500–1042 (Second Edition, 1979), edited by Dorothy Whitelock.
A letter from Pope Hadrian to Charles, king of the Franks (Charlemagne), only loosely dated to between 784 and 791 (Codex Carolinus No. 92), reveals that there had been a rumour that Offa was inciting Charlemagne to overthrow Hadrian and install a Frankish pope. This rumour had been spread by unnamed “enemies” of Offa and Charlemagne. Simon Keynes* suggests that “it was none other than Jænberht” who “concocted the ‘rumour’ that Offa and Charlemagne were plotting to depose the pope, in a desperate bid to undermine Offa’s standing in Rome.”
* ‘The Kingdom of the Mercians in the Eighth Century’, in Æthelbald and Offa, Two Eighth-Century Kings of Mercia (2005).
St Augustine of Canterbury had, of course, been the leader of a team of missionaries despatched by Pope Gregory I (‘the Great’), in 596: “to preach the Word of God to the English nation” (Bede Historia Ecclesiastica I, 23). (See Æthelberht I of Kent.)
Pope Leo’s letter, in Latin, to King Cenwulf survives in British Library MS Cotton Vespasian A xiv. In English translation, it is Item 205 in English Historical Documents c. 500–1042 (Second Edition, 1979), edited by Dorothy Whitelock.
It is sometimes suggested that 3 (iii) years is a scribal error (which must have been in the common antecedent of the surviving Chronicle manuscripts) for 13 (xiii) years. Thirteen years, rather conveniently, allows Egbert to be expelled in 789, the same year that Beorhtric married Eadburh, and remain in exile until 802, in which year Beorhtric died and Egbert became king of the West Saxons.
Highlighted section in Manuscripts A, B and C only.
Highlighted section in Manuscripts A, B and C only.
In Manuscript A, Æthelberht is titled “King Æthelberht”. The language of the Chronicle is Old English, but in this instance ‘king’ is written as, the Latin, rex.
Anglo-Saxon England Third Edition (1971), Chapter 7 (pp.209–10 and p.220).
Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (1990), Chapter 7 (p.141).
The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol. 2 (1995), Chapter 2a (pp.34–5).
The Earliest English Kings Revised Edition (2000), Chapter 8 (p.145).
From Roman Britain to Norman England Second Edition (1998), Chapter 2 (p.106).
Charlemagne was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III, on Christmas Day 800. He died in 814.
This story is found in the Gesta Sanctorum Patrum Fontanellensis Coenobii, also known as Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium (Deeds of the Abbots of Fontanelle), written between 833 and 843. The name of the daughter of Offa involved is not mentioned, but presumably it was Ælfflæd (who subsequently married Æthelred of Northumbria).
In fact, Alcuin names neither Offa nor Charlemagne in his remark about “old friends” (A10). A sceptical Rosamond McKitterick (Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity, 2008, Chapter 4, pp.282–4) writes: “it is unlikely that this refers to Charlemagne and Offa, for describing them as ‘old friends’ is hardly appropriate.” Professor McKitterick argues that the ‘old friends’ are more likely to have been Charlemagne and Pope Hadrian, and also opines: “Charlemagne’s negative attitude to foreign marriages was otherwise so consistent, that this marriage alliance story seems very unlikely.”
There is some uncertainty regarding the location of Rheinwg (‘the country of Rhain’ – in Welsh a region can be named by tacking ‘wg’ onto a personal name). It could be Dyfed or Brycheiniog.
Alcuin (born c.735), a Northumbrian, was educated in the cathedral school at York, and eventually became its headmaster. In 781, whilst returning to York from Rome, he met Charles the Great, king of the Franks (better known as Charlemagne), who invited him to teach in the palace school at Aachen. Alcuin accepted the invitation. He returned to Northumbria on two occasions. The first was in 786, at the time of the visit of the papal legate. He travelled from Northumbria to Mercia, with the legate, to represent King Ælfwald and Archbishop Eanbald at the synod, presided over by King Offa and Archbishop Jænberht, before going back to Francia.[*] The second was for the period 790–793. In 796, he was appointed abbot of St Martin’s monastery at Tours. He died in 804.
In a letter to Offa (A38), Alcuin writes: “I am delighted that you are so keen on encouraging reading, that the light of wisdom, now extinct in many places, may shine in your kingdom. You are the glory of Britain, the trumpet of the gospel, our sword and shield against the enemy.”
Symeon of Durham (HR), correctly, s.a. 796: “on the 26th of July [vii kalendas Augusti], Offa, the most potent king of the Mercians, died after a reign of 39 years”. All manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle place the simple announcement: “King Offa died”, two years early, s.a. 794. Manuscripts D and E, however, report Offa’s death again under the correct year, 796. Manuscript D says it occurred on 29th July (iiii kalendas Augusti). Manuscript E apparently has a scribal error, which renders the date, in modern terminology, 10th August (iiii idus Augusti). Manuscripts D and E also contradict the previous statement of Offa’s reign length given in all manuscripts (39 years, s.a. 755), by, evidently wrongly, crediting him with a 40 year reign.
By this time, the standard form of Anglo-Saxon coinage was the silver penny. The earliest Anglo-Saxon coins were gold, but by about 700 the switch had been made to silver,[*] and thereafter the production of coins in gold was evidently a very rare event – at the present time (March 2024) only eight (firmly identified) Anglo-Saxon gold coins minted after 700 are known, one of which is the imitation dinar of Offa and another is Cenwulf’s ‘mancus’. It seems clear, as demonstrated by a comment in the will of Eadred, king of the English (d.955): “let there be taken 2000 mancuses of gold and let it be coined into mancuses”, that a mancus was, primarily, a unit of weight applying to gold, but it was also a name used for a gold coin. Ælfric ‘the Grammarian’ (c.955–c.1010) says that one mancus had the same value as thirty pennies.
Cenwulf’s father may well be the Ealdorman Cuthbert, accorded the title princeps, who leased land in Lincolnshire from the abbot of Medeshamstede (i.e. Peterborough), with the consent of Offa and Ecgfrith (S1412 – undated, but, since both Offa and Ecgfrith are titled rex, it must date from between 787, when Ecgfrith was consecrated, and 796).
The term ‘Saxons’ is used generically – simply meaning the English (Anglo-Saxons). For “the Saxons” read “the Mercians”.
Alcuin, in a letter to a Mercian correspondent (A46), comments: “you know well how much blood the father shed to secure the kingdom for his son.”
Cenwulf’s letter is preserved by William of Malmesbury (GR I §88). Pope Leo’s survives in British Library MS Cotton Vespasian A xiv.
Both letters are published, in English translation (the originals are in Latin), in English Historical Documents c. 500–1042 (Second Edition, 1979), edited by Dorothy Whitelock, Items 204 and 205.
Only Manuscripts B and C correctly name the Mercian king Cenwulf (Cynulf) – the rest have Ceolwulf, who was Cenwulf’s successor. Also, in Manuscript A, the Mercian king: “ravaged the people of Kent as far as the Marsh”.
Also s.a. 798, Symeon of Durham notes: “London was destroyed by an accidental fire, with a great multitude of people.”
Viking raids on England would appear to have begun around the year 790. An attack on the monastery of Lindisfarne, which took place on 8th June 793, is the earliest precisely dated raid.
Manuscript F of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has additions s.a. 798, in the margin, one of which states: “Sigeric, king of the East Saxons, went to Rome.” Sigeric’s son, Sigered, appears in the witness-list of two of Cenwulf’s charters (S165; S168), dated 811, with the title rex (king). The following year (S170), however, he is only accorded the title subregulus (sub-king). He also appears with the latter title in a charter of Cenwulf’s successor, Ceolwulf, dated 823 (S187).
The province of the Hwicce corresponded, roughly, to Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and western Warwickshire. It had been a self-governing Mercian satellite, with its own royal dynasty, but during Offa’s rule it was fully absorbed into Mercia.
A charter of Cenwulf (S154) refers to a peace treaty between the Mercians and the West Saxons. In the form the text has survived, the treaty is said to have been concluded by Cenwulf and Egbert, but the charter is dated 799, which is, of course, incompatible with Egbert’s reign. The date would seem to be correct, since it is given a proper Indiction number (7th) for the AD year (see Anno Domini). Possibly, as preferred by D.P. Kirby*: “friendship was not confirmed between the kings, Cenwulf and Egbert, but between Cenwulf and Beorhtric, for whose name Egbert’s has been erroneously substituted.” Patrick Sims-Williams**, though prefers to: “accept the date … and reject the historical allusion to the peace treaty as an antiquarian addition.” The Electronic Sawyer, on the other hand, implies that maybe the charter’s date is wrong, and suggests 802 as the alternative.
* The Earliest English Kings Revised Edition (2000), Chapter 8 note 123 (p.230).
** Religion and Literature in Western England, 600-800 (1990), Chapter 6 (p.171 fn.127).
In practice the archbishopric of Lichfield had already been abandoned. Hygeberht, the only holder of the office, appears in a charter of 801 (S158) titled simply ‘bishop’, and by 803 he seems to have resigned his bishopric – an abbot of the same name features in a record of the synod at Clofesho (S1431b).
There survives a document (S167) purporting to be the foundation-charter of Winchcombe – in effect, the official record of the dedication described by William of Malmesbury. The existing text (a 12th century manuscript in British Library MS Cotton Tiberius E iv), however, is spurious. Certainly, its date, 9th November 811, is incompatible with the presence of Cuthred, who, on the authority of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, died in 807. (As detailed elsewhere on this page, the majority of Chronicle entries at this time are placed two years too early. As a result Cuthred’s death appears s.a. 805. Incidentally, neither the Chronicle nor S167 mentions Eadberht’s release.)
Published, in Latin, in Haddan & Stubbs Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Vol. 3 (1871), pp.562–4.
In the Mercian section of the miscellany that precedes Florence’s chronicle proper, Ludeca is similarly said to have been killed by the East Angles whilst attempting to avenge his predecessor, though there is no mention of his five ealdormen. William of Malmesbury (GR I §96) echoes this – unsurprising, since it is evident that the miscellany and William share a common source. In the poetic version of history presented by Geffrei Gaimar, however, Ludeca is said to have been “killed by the Welsh” (line 2292). Roger of Wendover, on the other hand, states that Ludeca was “slain by King Egbert” (an event that Roger places in 828).
The Three Fragments firmly locate the action in Gwynedd, and Maen Chonain, mentioned by the Annals of Ulster, is widely reckoned to be the Isle of Anglesey. Maen is equated with Môn, the Welsh name for Anglesey, and Chonain is an Irish form of the name Cynan, by which token, Maen Chonain would be ‘Anglesey of Cynan’ – referring to the King Cynan who, having won back the island from a rival, died in 816? (See Altered States.)
Recent evidence suggests that Wat’s Dyke was built in the early-9th century – later than its more famous relative, Offa’s Dyke. If so, it would probably be Cenwulf who was responsible for the construction of Wat’s Dyke (see Offa’s Dyke page).
Ceolwulf is identified as Cenwulf’s brother by William of Malmesbury (GR I §96) and in the collection of various lists and genealogies that precedes the Chronicon ex Chronicis of Florence of Worcester.
D.P. Kirby* suggests that, since it would be unlikely for Ceolwulf to have been deposed after a great military success against the Welsh, the campaign noted by the Annales Cambriae should be assigned to the beginning of Beornwulf’s reign.
* The Earliest English Kings Revised Edition (2000), Chapter 9 (p.154).
Baldred issued coins as ‘king of Kent’. It is possible that he was an independent Kentish ruler, but subsequent events indicate he was a Mercian appointee, and his name, beginning with ‘B’, suggests he was a relative of Beornwulf. (By the same token, Beornwulf may be from the same family as Beornred, who had ruled Mercia, very briefly, before being overthrown by Offa in 757.)
Presumably the Chronicle is only referring to Kent having been “unjustly forced from his [Egbert’s] kinsmen”, the other territories mentioned being, in effect, in parentheses. Egbert’s father, Ealhmund, had briefly ruled Kent in the mid-780s, prior to its takeover by Offa.
The synod at Clofesho of 824 is recorded (wrongly s.a. 822) by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The whole annal, somewhat mysteriously, reads: “In this year [824] two ealdormen, Burghelm and Muca, were slain; and there was a synod at Clofesho.” Burghelm is otherwise unknown (though his name might indicate he was related to Beornwulf), but Muca is a signatory to the two charters of Ceolwulf (S186; S187). Perhaps Beornwulf saw them as potential rivals for his throne. Æthelweard says (III, 2) they were killed at Clofesho, but that may be just his faulty interpretation of the notice as it appears in the extant versions of the Chronicle.
Ludeca is only identified as Beornwulf’s kinsman (propinquus) here by Florence, and in the Mercian section of the miscellany that precedes his work.
Florence of Worcester exhibits the same chronological dislocation as the Chronicle. Both sources place this event two years early, i.e. in 825 instead of 827.
Athelstan is known from a substantial number of coins, but just two of them (at time of writing) have the image of a ship on the obverse, and may be earlier than the rest. In her article ‘A ship-type of Athelstan I of East Anglia’ (British Numismatic Journal Vol. 52, 1982, freely available online), Marion M. Archibald suggested that Athelstan might have made a “briefly successful bid for power” after Cenwulf’s death in 821.
In The Origins of Beowulf: From Vergil to Wiglaf (2006), Preface (p.vii), Richard North suggests that Beowulf: “was composed in the winter of 826–7 by Eanmund, abbot of the minster of Breedon on the Hill in north-west Leicestershire, not only as a requiem for King Beornwulf of Mercia who was killed in battle earlier that year, but also as a work of recommendation for Wiglaf, an ealdorman who was plotting to succeed him.” (In the story, Beowulf nominates a character called Wiglaf as his successor.) It is not, in fact, certain that Ludeca, who ruled briefly between Beornwulf and Wiglaf, was killed by the East Angles. Richard North argues that he was killed by Wiglaf (Chapter 10, pp.301–2).
Egbert minted coins at London inscribed: ECGBERHT REX M (Egbert, king of the Mercians).
As detailed elsewhere on this page, the majority of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entries at this time are placed two years too early. As a result, Egbert’s conquest of Mercia appears s.a. 827 instead of 829, and Wiglaf’s restoration s.a. 828 instead of 830.
S188 records a grant of land in Middlesex, made by Wiglaf to Wulfred, archbishop of Canterbury. It is dated 831: “in the first year of my second reign”.
S190 is dated 836: “in the seventh year of our reign granted by God”. It is an original document from a synod, held at Croft in Leicestershire, that was attended by the archbishop of Canterbury and eleven other bishops – from the five Mercian sees (Lichfield, Leicester, Lindsey, Worcester, Hereford), plus Sherborne (Wessex), Rochester (Kent), two unidentified bishops, London, and Selsey (Sussex). Wiglaf refers to the whole assembled gathering as “my bishops and ealdormen (duces) and magistrates”, which, says Frank Stenton*: “proves, not only the king’s independence, but also the revival of Mercian authority over the southern episcopate.”
* Anglo-Saxon England Third Edition (1971), Chapter 7 (p.234).
William of Malmesbury (GR II §107), similarly: “Wiglaf … first driven from his kingdom by Egbert, and afterwards admitted as a tributary prince, augmented the West Saxon sovereignty.”
Wiglaf’s coins, like those minted at London by Egbert, are very rare. It is entirely possible that no coins were produced in Mercia during Wiglaf’s second reign. In Early Anglo-Saxon Coins (2008) Chapter 5 (p.38), Gareth Williams comments: “He [Egbert] also conquered Mercia in 829, briefly issuing coins which celebrated his control of London and Mercia. However, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle indicates that in the following year Wiglaf of Mercia ‘obtained’ his kingdom again. How he obtained it is not specified, and it may be that the phrase refers to some sort of loose West Saxon over-kingship rather than full Mercian independence. Certainly Wiglaf appears not to have issued coins for the remaining ten years of his reign, perhaps echoing the suppression of the coinage of lesser kings during the Mercian supremacy of Offa.”
Frank Stenton* was of the opinion that Wiglaf was restored by a rebellion against Egbert’s rule. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle originated in Wessex, and Professor Stenton argues that if Egbert had indeed handed Mercia back to Wiglaf, a West Saxon chronicler would have certainly recorded such magnanimity with a flourish, rather than the low-key announcement: “Wiglaf again obtained the kingdom of the Mercians”.
* Anglo-Saxon England Third Edition (1971), Chapter 7 (p.233).
Ludeca was sufficiently well ensconced in East Anglia to mint coins there, so the motive of hot-bloodied revenge seems somewhat fanciful. Ludeca was evidently the last Mercian king to produce coins in East Anglia, so Mercian control of the province didn’t outlast him, whoever was responsible for his death.
Between 754 and 845 there is a chronological dislocation in all extant manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – hence it must have been in their common antecedent. The majority of entries up to 828 are placed two years too early. From then until 845 the error is increased to three years. When correct chronology is restored in the other manuscripts, Manuscript C promptly adds two extraneous blank annals to move two years ahead. After its entry s.a. 853, Manuscript C omits a blank annal, reducing the error to one year in advance of true date, at which level it stays for the remainder of the century. As a consequence, the events of:
835 appear s.a. 832
842 appear s.a. 839
851 appear s.a. 851, but s.a. 853 in Manuscript C.
(It is a peculiarity of Manuscript B that after 652 the year-number is generally omitted.)
The location of Dommoc is not known. The most popular suggestion is Dunwich, Suffolk. There are two alternatives for the location of Helmham: North Elmham in Norfolk and South Elmham in Suffolk. Although it is an arguable point, North Elmham seems the most likely option.
The seat of the bishop of Lindsey, rendered Sidnacester by William of Malmesbury, who records the division of the dioceses (GR I §87 and GP I §7), is unidentified.
In fact, William of Malmesbury does not mention Sherborne (presumably an oversight). Roger of Wendover (s.a. 765), though, assigns Sherborne to Canterbury, but omits Selsey.
In J.A Giles’ translation (1849) the highlighted phrase is omitted, though it is present in Coxe’s Latin edition (1841), which Giles employed: constructo fere nobilissimo post inventionem beati albani monasterio.
S1271 records a grant of land at Pangbourne, Berkshire, made by the bishop of Leicester to Beorhtwulf, and it is indeed dated 844 (dcccxliiii). However, it is also given the Indiction number 6 (vi), which would be fine for the last four months of 842 and the first eight months of 843, but not at all for 844 (see Anno Domini). The charter is further dated to year 4 (iiii) of Beorhtwulf’s reign. The year of Wiglaf’s death/Beorhtwulf’s succession is, though, as previously discussed, a little nebulous: 839 or 840. (S192 places Beorhtwulf on the throne by Easter, i.e. 28th March, 840.)
This phraseology as in Manuscript A. In Manuscripts B, C and D the entry is a little awry. Manuscripts E and F have no entry s.a. 838.
An Ealdorman (dux) Hereberht witnesses Kentish charters in 838 (S280, S286) and 839 (S287). In Manuscript D his name (rendered Herebryht in MS A, Herebriht in B and C) is given as Ecgbryht. MS D also erroneously has myrc, i.e. boundary, instead of mersc, i.e. marsh.
Ealdorman Æthelwulf was killed fighting alongside King Æthelred of Wessex, against the Vikings, at Reading in 871. Æthelweard says (IV, 2) that the ealdorman’s body was secretly recovered: “and was taken into Mercia, to the place called Northworthig, but in the Danish language Deoraby [Derby].”
No coins that can be definitely attributed to the second reign of Beorhtwulf’s predecessor, Wiglaf, have survived (though there are a couple of possibles). This is perhaps the most compelling evidence that Egbert, king of Wessex, had some degree of authority over Wiglaf, resulting in the suppression of Mercian coinage. Egbert and Wiglaf died around the same time, and the subsequent revival of Mercian coinage, apparently with the assistance of Æthelwulf’s craftsmen, is certainly indicative of a new relationship between Mercia and Wessex.
Quentovic (Cwantawic) was a major Frankish trading settlement (it no longer exists) on the river Canche, a few miles inland from the Channel (near the present-day village of La Calotterie). Manuscript C substitutes Canterbury (Cantwarabirig) instead.
Witan: The king’s advisory council, composed of important secular and ecclesiastical personages.
The English rank immediately below king was ‘ealdorman’. The equivalent rank among Scandinavians was ‘earl’ (Old Norse: jarl). Latin-writers, however, employed old Roman titles – usually dux (plural: duces; genitive singular: ducis), source of the modern English word ‘duke’, or, as here by Asser, comes (plural: comites; genitive singular: comitis), source of the modern English word ‘count’ – to represent the vernacular titles.
The whereabouts of the Gaini is unknown. The “noble Mercian lady” that Alfred married was, in fact, called Ealhswith (oddly, Asser doesn’t name her). She died on 5th December 902, and, in the, so-called, ‘Metrical Calendar of Hampson’ (originating in the reign of Alfred and Ealhswith’s son, Edward) she is commemorated as: “the true and beloved lady of the English”.
Manuscript C, being one year ahead until at least the end of the century, places the events of the year autumn 867 to autumn 868 s.a. 869.
In 873, Egbert, the Viking-appointed Northumbrian king, died, but Wulfhere, archbishop of York, was restored to his see.
on Angelcynnes scole: literally ‘in the school of the English race’. Not a school in the modern sense, but an area near St Peter’s populated by English pilgrims etc.
According to Asser (§46), Burgred: “did not live long after his arrival at Rome”. Burgred’s wife, Æthelswith – sister of Alfred, who had become king of the West Saxons in 871 – died in 888 (ASC), apparently whilst travelling to Rome, and was buried at Pavia.
In Medieval European Coinage, 1: The Early Middle Ages (1986) Chapter 10 (p.312), Philip Grierson and Mark Blackburn comment: “A Mercian regnal list assigns Ceolwulf a reign of five years, i.e. until 879, but the size of his coinage could suggest that he reigned longer.” Charter evidence (S218) demonstrates that Ceolwulf had certainly ceased to rule by 883.
Highlighted part of annal not in Manuscript A.
Asser (§30): “And when the pagans, protected by the defences of the fortress, refused to fight, and the Christians were unable to destroy the wall, peace was made between the Mercians and the pagans, and the two brothers, Æthelred and Alfred, returned home with their troops.”
The sequence of West Saxon kings during Burgred’s reign in Mercia:
Æthelwulf, 839–855(8).
Æthelbald, son of Æthelwulf, 855–860.
Æthelberht, son of Æthelwulf, 860–865.
Æthelred, son of Æthelwulf, 865–871.
Alfred, son of Æthelwulf, 871–899.
Of course, by “made peace” the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle means that large quantities of money and provisions were handed-over to the Danes in exchange for them not wreaking havoc. In a charter dated 872 (S1278) there is an explanation that the bishop of Worcester had been obliged to lease out a parcel of land to raise money for: “the immense tribute of the barbarians, in that same year when the pagans stayed in London.”
Lindsey – once a kingdom in its own right, but by this time a region of Mercia – occupied northern Lincolnshire.
The “foolish king’s thegn” is not named in Manuscript A.
Asser (§30) adds that Nottingham: “is called in Welsh Tigguocobauc, but in Latin Speluncarum Domus [House of Caves]”. In Old English, Nottingham is Snotengaham, which simply means ‘the settlement of Snot’s people’.
In a footnote (fn.55) to his piece ‘Wales and Mercia, 613–918’ (published in Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, 2001), T.M. Charles-Edwards comments: “While the annal puts Wiglaf’s recovery of Mercia first and the Welsh campaign second, the two events may have been in reverse order or contemporaneous. By expressing it as he did, the annalist ended with a West Saxon triumph instead of a reversal.” Certainly, D.P. Kirby (The Earliest English Kings Revised Edition, 2000, Chapter 9) assumes that the Welsh campaign took place first, writing (p.157) that: “the success of this campaign must have been overshadowed by Wiglaf’s recovery of his kingdom later in the year.”
Indicating a date of 865, the Annales Cambriae mention that: “Duda laid Glywysing [in south-eastern Wales] waste.” Duda is an English name – a Mercian ealdorman?
The report of the legates to Pope Hadrian printed in full: Alcuini Epistolae No. 3, in Epistolae Karolini Aevi Vol. 2 ed. E. Dümmler (1895). Selectively translated into English in English Historical Documents c. 500–1042 (Second Edition, 1979), ed. Dorothy Whitelock, Item 191.
Beorhtwulf’s death and Burgred’s succession are not recorded elsewhere. The year given by Florence, 852, is confirmed by charters: S214 is dated 869, in the 17th year of Burgred’s reign; S210 is dated 25th July 864, in the 13th year of Burgred’s reign. By these tokens, Burgred must have become king in 852, before 25th July.
Roger of Wendover: “they destroyed all the monasteries of monks and virgins that were in the marshes, and slew their inmates.” Roger names the destroyed fenland monasteries: Crowland, Thorney, Ramsey, Peterborough and Ely.
Florence does not use the vernacular ‘ealdormen’. He uses the Latin duces. Dux (plural: duces), in the Late Roman Empire, was the title of a high-ranking military commander, and is the source of the modern English word ‘duke’.
Eowa is the son of Pybba, therefore the brother of Penda, with whom Mercian history, in effect, begins.
s.a. = sub anno = ‘under the year’.
Anglo-Saxon charters are referred to by their number in Sawyer’s catalogue.
Available online: The Electronic Sawyer.
The Anglian Collection of royal genealogies is found in four manuscripts, the oldest of which (British Library MS Cotton Vespasian B vi) was written in Mercia in the early-9th century.
Libellus de Exordio atque Procursu istius, hoc est Dunhelmensis, Ecclesie (Tract on the Origins and Progress of this the Church of Durham).
Historia Regum (History of the Kings).
Alcuin (born c.735), a Northumbrian, was educated in the cathedral school at York, and eventually became its headmaster. In 781, whilst returning to York from Rome, he met Charles the Great, king of the Franks (Charlemagne), who invited him to teach in the palace school at Aachen. Alcuin accepted the invitation. He returned to England on two occasions. The first was in 786, when he represented the king of Northumbria and the archbishop of York at a synod in Mercia. The second was for the period 790–793. In 796, he was appointed abbot of St Martin’s monastery at Tours. He died in 804.
The number refers to Stephen Allott’s edition of Alcuin’s letter-collection in English translation (the originals are in Latin), first published in 1974, under the title Alcuin of York.
Gesta Regum Anglorum (Deeds of the Kings of England).
Gesta Pontificum Anglorum (Deeds of the Bishops of England).
Anglo-Norman chronicler Geffrei Gaimar wrote his Estoire des Engleis (History of the English), for a Lincolnshire patroness, round-about 1140. It is the earliest known historical work to have been written in the French language, and is in verse (actually, octosyllabic rhymed couplets). In fact, the Estoire des Engleis is the latter part of a longer work, but the earlier part has not survived. The existing work covers the period from the arrival in Britain of Cerdic (495) to the death of William Rufus (1100). Up to 959, it is based on a lost version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, first produced his Historia Anglorum (History of the English) about 1130. He later revisited the work – revising and extending – several times. The final version concludes with the accession of Henry II in 1154.
The crypt of St Wystan’s Church, Repton.
