Tom Armstrong
Just an old fashioned romantic libertarian conservative at heart. Or maybe a romantic conservative libertarian, depending on the stages of the moon.
It’s time to introduce a politician so treacherous that he makes Mandelson appear the very model of moral rectitude. Eadric Streona, often called Eadric the Grabber, was the most dangerously treacherous man in England during the troubled years at the beginning of the 11th century. His nickname, Streona, means ‘Acquisitor’, Grasper’ or, more commonly, the ‘Grabber’. It suited him well.
He appears in the history of England as a man who acquired land, power and influence, often by means of assassination, while changing loyalties whenever it served his interests. He served King Æthelred, betrayed him, Cnut, betrayed him to support Edmund Ironside, and then made the ultimate betrayal, forsaking Edmund for Cnut in the midst of the most important battle of the war.
Æthelred’s nickname, “the Unready”, should be taken to mean ‘the badly advised’. As that king’s longest serving advisor, it was Eadric who helped him earn it. A king who trusted a man such as Eadric was bound to make disastrous decisions. And so it turned out.
Eadric rose from a family of some importance in the west of England. His father, Æthelric, had connections at the royal court, but Eadric himself was not born into the highest rank of the nobility. His rise was probably due to his ability to serve the king’s purposes, however unpleasant those purposes might be. In 1007 Æthelred appointed him ealdorman of Mercia, one of the greatest offices in the kingdom. He later married Æthelred’s daughter Eadgyth, becoming the king’s son-in-law and brother-in-law to the king’s sons, including Edmund, later designated Ironside.
Eadric’s rise was accompanied by murder and assassination of his many enemies. In 1006 he was arranged the killing of Ælfhelm, ealdorman of York. The exact details are not entirely clear, but the murder helped remove a powerful rival and strengthened Æthelred’s control. Eadric was also connected with many other political killings. In 1015 he invited two leading thegns, Sigeferth and Morcar, to a meeting at Oxford and had them murdered. These men were important landowners in the East Midlands, and their deaths allowed the king to take control of their estates. Eadric therefore appears as a genuine Prince of Darkness who used murder to reshape English politics.
It is difficult to know whether Eadric acted on his own initiative or on the direct orders of Æthelred. The king benefited from the deaths, but so did Eadric, who was the sort of servant a weak and troubled ruler might turn to when ordinary law and negotiation where unfavourable. Æthelred repeatedly relied on a man who used treachery and murder, and while Eadric was not the only person responsible for the disorder of the reign, he was its chief instigator. Æthelred’s nickname, “the Unready”, comes from an Old English word meaning ‘badly advised’ or ‘without proper counsel’ and Eadric’s constant intrigues provide a striking example of the kind of advice that helped to ruin the king’s reputation.
Eadric was also connected with the failed attempts to deal with the Danish invasions. England was under severe pressure. Danish armies had raided the country for years, and the English government had often to raise large sums to pay them to leave. It failed, of course. In 1013 Sweyn Forkbeard invaded and conquered England. Æthelred fled to Normandy with his family and Eadric went with him. When Sweyn died suddenly in 1014, the English invited Æthelred to return, and Eadric returned with him in another example of his ability to survive political disaster. He had played a large part in the destruction of the old regime, followed it into exile and then came back when its fortunes improved.
In 1015 Eadric’s shenanigans brought Edmund, the king’s eldest surviving son, into open conflict with his father. After the Eadric’s murder of Sigeferth and Morcar, the king seized their estates and imprisoned Sigeferth’s widow, Ealdgyth, and was apparently about to force her to spend the rest of her life in a convent. The young Edmund, however, dramatically rode to her rescue and promptly married her.
This might not have been an entirely romantic act as Ealdgyth was connected to a powerful family, and the marriage gave Edmund access to land, followers and political support in the Midlands. The marriage also placed him directly against his father’s policy and against Eadric, the man responsible for killing her husband.
Edmund was a very different character to Eadric. He was young, energetic, brave and willing to take responsibility when the kingdom was in danger. He gained the name “Ironside”, because of his courage and determination in battle. The surviving accounts portray him as a gallant warrior king who refused to surrender even when the country was divided and the royal government was failing.
In 1016 Cnut, the son of Sweyn Forkbeard, returned to England with a large Danish army. By this time Æthelred was seriously ill, so Edmund took command of the English resistance. The treacherous Eadric, decamped and took his men to join Cnut. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Eadric crossed the Thames with Cnut and helped him ravage parts of Mercia. It was an extraordinary act of betrayal. Eadric had been Æthelred’s son-in-law and one of his chief officials, yet he now betrayed the king who had raised him up to support the foreign prince who was attempting to take Æthelred’s crown.
After Æthelred died in April 1016, Edmund was chosen king by the people of London and by those who supported the old English royal family. Cnut was also accepted as king by some of the leading nobles in the south. England, therefore, had two rival kings. The country was not divided simply between English and Danes. Some Anglo-Saxon rulers and noblemen supported Cnut, while others supported Edmund. Likewise with the Danes. Local rivalries, personal loyalties and hopes of reward were as important as national feeling.
The struggle led to a series of battles and military campaigns. Edmund fought Cnut and Eadric at Penselwood and Sherston and beat them. He then relieved London and defeated the Danes after crossing the Thames at Brentford. The Danes returned to attack London, but their assaults failed. Edmund gathered fresh forces and continued to pursue them. At Otford in Kent, Edmund’s forces again gained the advantage and beat the Danes.
Eadric was still fighting for Cnut, but after this battle, he changed sides once more and, foolishly, was accepted back by Edmund.
This decision is one of the clearest signs of Edmund’s generous, or perhaps dangerously trusting, character. Eadric had already supported Cnut against Æthelred and had helped ravage England. Nevertheless, Edmund allowed his brother-in-law to return. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle judged this harshly, saying that no greater folly had ever before been agreed to. Edmund may have believed that he needed Eadric’s men and influence. He may also have hoped that bringing Eadric back would unite the English forces. Whatever his reason, the decision placed the kingdom’s fate in the hands of a man whose history showed that he could not be trusted.
The final confrontation took place at Assandun in Essex on 18 October 1016. Edmund’s army met Cnut’s forces in a battle that decided the future of England. Edmund’s men fought bravely but, whether by design is not known, Eadric abruptly and treacherously withdrew his forces from the field, allowing Cnut to win a crushing victory. The Chronicle says that Eadric betrayed his royal lord and the whole English people.
Edmund had shown remarkable energy and had raised several armies, relieved London, pursued the Danes and repeatedly returned to the fight after setbacks. His failure was not caused by a lack of courage. It was caused by the weakness of his resources, the divided loyalties of the English nobles and, above all, the treachery of Eadric the Grabber.
After Assandun, Edmund and Cnut made peace at an island near Deerhurst. They divided the kingdom between them, with Edmund ruling Wessex and Cnut ruling much of the north. They also agreed that if either king died, the other would inherit his lands. The settlement gave Edmund a temporary chance to continue as king, but he died only a few weeks later, in November 1016. The cause of his death is uncertain. Later stories accused Eadric of arranging his murder, even inventing gruesome tales about the manner of Edmund’s death, but there is no firm evidence that Eadric killed him. It’s not a bad guess that he did though.
Cnut then became sole king of England. Eadric was allowed to remain ealdorman of Mercia for a short time but Cnut, understanding that a man who had betrayed Æthelred and Edmund might eventually betray him too, ordered Eadric’s execution at Christmas 1017. Later writers give different details, including strangling and beheading, but all agree on the essential point: the master of treachery was finally and deservedly destroyed by the king he had helped to power.
The contrast between the Eadric and Edmund is stark. Eadric was clever, persuasive and ambitious, but his intelligence was used for personal advancement. Edmund was brave, loyal and willing to fight for his kingdom, but his trust in powerful men could be turned against him. Eadric survived many changes of fortune, while Edmund fought openly and lost his life before he could complete the defence of England.
If Edmund had defeated Cnut at Assandun, the history of England would probably have been very different. The Danish conquest might have failed, and the old English royal line could have continued. England might not have become part of Cnut’s North Sea empire, and the political development that followed could have taken another path, avoiding the Norman Anschluss. Edmund’s defeat was therefore more than the failure of one army. It was the moment when the future of England was decided by the courage of a young king and the treachery of Eadric the Grabber.
This article was originally published by the Free Speech Backlash.
