Talk:List of monarchs of Sussex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The list appears to have been taken from

Carpenter, Clive (1978) The Guiness Book of Kings, Rulers & Statesmen. Enfield.

“Many of the dates of this time are unreliable and the list contains substantial gaps”: The dates are mostly fictional and whether there are gaps is a matter of speculation.

“The genealogy of the Kings has been largely lost”: There is no reason to suppose that a genealogy ever existed.

“some may have been sub-kings of the Haestingas, present-day East Sussex”: The territory of the Hæstingas did not correspond to East Sussex and the is no evidence of separate kings for the Hæstingas (nor for East Sussex).

“This was a time when spellings varied widely, even within a document”: This is true, but it is easy to establish the correct spelling, as Anglo-Saxon names are constructed from a standard pool of name forming elements. Also, it must be stressed that the original documents do not survive, except for one charter of Oslac, so they are now represented by later copies, and some of the variants are just copying errors.

Ælle, his three sons, their three ships, and their three battles are fictional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aelle_of_Sussex

The reign of Cissa is not mentioned by any source earlier than Henry of Huntingdon, who wrote during the years 1130 to 1154, and evidently used his imagination.

“unknown kings”: There is no evidence for the existence of kings in Sussex before the introduction of Christianity, which is when written records commenced.

The first historic king is Æðelwealh. As Wulfhere, King of Mercia, was sponsor at his baptism, and Wulfhere died in 675, Æðelwealh’s reign must have commenced in or before 675. He was killed at some point after Wilfrid, Bishop of York, arrived in Sussex, which was around 681, and before Cædwalla became king of Wessex, in 685.

Berthun and Andhun were mentioned by Bede, but he did not call them kings, just duces regii. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cædwalla laid waste to Kent in 686 and again in 687, which implies control of the intervening territory.

The next known king is Noðhelm, who was called Nunna for short. In 692 Noðhelm granted land to his sister Noðgyð. He was styled Nothelmus rex Suthsax’ in the body of the charter, but he signed it as Nunna rex Sussax’ [1]. Noðhelm’s last surviving charter, in which he was called Nunna rex Suthsax’, is dated 714, probably in error for 717, [2] so his reign began in or before 692 and ended in or after 717.

Noðhelm’s charter of 692 was witnessed by Watt, who signed as Wattus rex, without any indication of his territory, but it is probable that he reigned in Sussex, because he also witnessed (again as Wattus rex) an undated charter (but before about 705) by Bruny dux Suthsax’ [3] together with Nunna rex. He is also listed as a witness (as Uuattus rex) of a another charter, erroneously dated 775, which is believed to be a forgery [4]. So, Watt’s reign began in or before 692, and extended at least to some date before about 705.

There is an undated charter of Noðhelm [5] that is witnessed by Osric, as Osricus, without indication of rank or territory, but listed before (and therefore ranked higher than) the Bishop of Selsey (whose rank and see are also omitted). The charter can be approximately dated to some point between about 705 and 717.

Æðelstan witnessed Noðhelm’s last surviving charter, which is dated 714 in error for 717, [6], as Athelstan rex. There is no indication of his territory. The same charter was also witnessed by Queen Æðelðryð, as Edeldrið regina. There is no clue as to how she was related to the various kings.

The dates of Æðelberht’s reign are unknown beyond the fact that it overlapped at least in part with the bishopship of Sigeferth, who was consecrated in 733 and was still bishop in 747, as Sigeferth witnessed an undated charter of Æðelberht [7] in which Æðelberht is styled Ethelbertus rex Sussaxonum. Another undated charter, in which he is called Adelbertus rex Australium Saxonum, is believe to be a forgery [8]. He is also mentioned in an undated endorsement to a charter of Noðhelm as Ethilberchto rege [9].

Osmund was reigning in Sussex when Archbishop Cuðberht died in 760, so his rule commenced before that event. He also issued a charter dated 770 in which he is listed as Osmundus rex [10]. So Osmund’s reign was from in or before 760 to between 770 and 772, as he witnessed a charter of Offa, King of Mercia, dated 772 as Osmund dux [11].

Ealdwulf issued an undated charter as Alduulf rex [12]. Later, he issued an undated charter as Aldwlfus dux Suthsaxonum, and signed as Aldwlf dux, [13], and another, dated 711 in error for 791 as Aldwlfus dux Suthsaxonum [14] with the subscription Ealdwlf.

Ælfwald witnessed Ealdwulf’s undated charter, corruptly recorded as Ælhuuald rex [15]. He also witnessed a charter of Offa, King of Mercia, dated 772 as Ælbuuald dux [16], with his name placed after Oswald, Osmund, but before Oslac. He is not known to have issued charters of his own, and there is no reason to date his reign to “fl. 790’s”.

Oslac witnessed Ealdwulf’s undated charter, corruptly recorded as Osiai rex [17]. He also witnessed a charter of Offa, King of Mercia, dated 772 as Oslac dux [18], with his name placed after Oswald, Osmund, and Ælfwald. His latest surviving charter is dated 790, and the original still exists; he is styled Oslac dux Suthsaxorum [19].

There is no evidence that Oswald was ever king, but he witnessed a charter of Offa, King of Mercia, dated 772 as Osuualdus dux Suðsax' [20]. He was listed ahead of the three former kings Osmund, Ælfwald, and Oslac.

Finally, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded the death of Eadwine, Ealdorman of Sussex, in 982.

Hovite 15:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: "There is no reason to suppose that a genealogy ever existed"

There must have been a genealogy. Whether that genealogy revealed a relationship between the listed monarchs is another matter.

Any list of early events which were rudimentarily recorded from the outset is of course liable to inaccuracies, fiction and legend. This list perhaps to a greater degree than others. However it cannot be justified to discard the list out-of-hand just because the grains of truth cannot be made out from the fiction: Better to include the list and heed it's flaws than not record the data at all. Someday research may build on the details included herein.

As for the known inaccuracies in the list, fellow Wikipedians have license to amend the data as seen fit.

--JohnArmagh 15:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whatever else these rulers were, they were not "monarchs", as most ruled jointly.

Hovite 15:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)