Anglo-Saxon democracy: some initial thoughts

I’m reading a lot of popular books on the Norman Conquest, and keep reading that Anglo-Saxon kingship was elective (and therefore good), and quite unlike Norman kingship, which was hereditary (therefore bad).

Let’s have a quick look at the two centuries before 1066 to see how Anglo-Saxon election worked in practice.

Alfred the Great (871-99) is succeeded by his son, Edward the Elder (899-924), who is succeeded by his son, Athelstan (924-39), who has no children, and so is succeeded by his younger brother, Edmund (939-46). Edmund is murdered in 946, and his two sons are only small boys, so the succession passes to his younger brother, Eadred (946-55) – who dies without issue, allowing Edmund’s eldest son, Eadwig, to inherit – sorry, succeed. Eadwig (955-59) also dies childless, so is succeeded by his younger brother, Edgar (959-75), who is succeeded by his son Edward the Martyr (975-78), who, being martyred before he has a chance to procreate, is succeeded by his brother Athelred the Unready (978-1016). The succession then becomes somewhat messy because late in Aethelred’s reign England is conquered by the Danish king, Swein Forkbeard (1013-14), but the principle for choosing a king remains unaltered: Aethelred is succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside (d. 1016) and Swein by his son Cnut (1016-35). Cnut is succeeded first by his son Harold Harefoot (1035-40) and then by his second son Harthacnut (1040-42). Both die without sons of their own, so the succession passes to Aethelred the Unready’s only surviving son, Edward the Confessor (1042-66).

Hooray for Anglo-Saxon democracy! Boo the Norman hereditary principle!