What do you think?
Rate this book
Elfrida: The First Crowned Queen of England
Contrary to popular belief, Anglo-Saxon England had queens, with the tenth century Elfrida being the most powerful and notorious of them all. She was the first woman to be crowned queen of England, sharing her husband King Edgar's imperial coronation at Bath in 973. The couple made a love match, with claims that they plotted the death of her first husband to ensure that she was free. Edgar divorced his second wife, a former nun, after conducting an adulterous affair with Elfrida, leading to an enmity between the two women that lasted until their deaths.During her marriage, Elfrida claimed to be the king's only legitimate wife, but she failed to secure the succession for her son, Ethelred. Elfrida plotted against her stepson, King Edward the Martyr, before arranging his murder at Corfe Castle, where she lived with her son. She then ruled England on behalf of her young son for six years before he expelled her from court. Elfrida was eventually able to return to court but, since he proved himself unable to counter the Viking attacks, she may have come to regret winning the crown for Ethelred the Unready.Wife, mother, murderer, ruler, crowned queen. The life of Queen Elfrida was filled with drama as she rose to become the most powerful woman in Anglo-Saxon England.
219 pages, Hardcover
First published August 20, 2013
About the author
Elizabeth Norton
38 books317 followersElizabeth Norton is a British historian specialising in the queens of England and the Tudor period. She obtained an Master of Arts in Archaeology and Anthropology from the University of Cambridge in 2003 and a masters degree in European Archaeology from the University of Oxford in 2004.
Elizabeth Norton is the author of five non-fiction works: She Wolves, The Notorious Queens of England (The History Press, 2008), Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's Obsession (Amberley, 2008), Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's True Love (Amberley, 2009), Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII's Discarded Bride (Amberley, 2009) and Catherine Parr (Amberley, 2010).[2]' She is also the author of two articles: Anne of Cleves and Richmond Palace (Surrey History, 2009) [3] and Scandinavian Influences in the Late Anglo-Saxon Sculpture of Sussex (Sussex Archaeological Collections, 2009)
Elizabeth Norton is the author of five non-fiction works: She Wolves, The Notorious Queens of England (The History Press, 2008), Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's Obsession (Amberley, 2008), Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's True Love (Amberley, 2009), Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII's Discarded Bride (Amberley, 2009) and Catherine Parr (Amberley, 2010).[2]' She is also the author of two articles: Anne of Cleves and Richmond Palace (Surrey History, 2009) [3] and Scandinavian Influences in the Late Anglo-Saxon Sculpture of Sussex (Sussex Archaeological Collections, 2009)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
November 15, 2013
Source: Free copy from Amberley Publishing for the purpose of review.
Elizabeth Norton embarks on a historical figure that sparse solid information is known. The history that has been passed down through the ages is Elfrida is believed to have murdered her step-son. She may not have held the weapon, but is believed to have been involved in the plotting. Norton wanted to look past Elfrida's infamous past and find other "attributes" that would define her, this was not an easy task.
Elfrida is the Latin name for the old English name AElfthryth. She was born in the mid 940s. Her father was a wealthy land owner. As an only daughter it is acknowledged she was spoiled. Married twice to men who were attracted to her beauty. Elfrida gave birth to three sons. She lived to be an elderly woman. Her personality was assertive, bold, ambitious, head-strong, arrogant. As a result she offended people. Elfrida's strong personality in an age when women were to be submissive and obedient; rubbed people the wrong way and helped create a tarnished legacy.
Norton utilized the writings of a historian named Geoffrey Gaimar (1100s).
I'm impressed with Norton's ability to write a biography on a historical character that is both notorious and slight on information. She poured through records, especially from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle of Gaimar. Carefully she ascribed her work. It would have been easy to write a book on the authors thoughts and leanings; instead Norton focused on the facts. She is transparent is stating when something was a probability, or fact.
A strong point of this book is it gave me a better view of life in England during the later years of the Viking raids and before William the Conqueror invaded. These ancient Saxon years when men were valiant and women were damsels. Elfrida was not what I would call a damsel, but an audacious noblewoman and queen.
Elizabeth Norton embarks on a historical figure that sparse solid information is known. The history that has been passed down through the ages is Elfrida is believed to have murdered her step-son. She may not have held the weapon, but is believed to have been involved in the plotting. Norton wanted to look past Elfrida's infamous past and find other "attributes" that would define her, this was not an easy task.
Elfrida is the Latin name for the old English name AElfthryth. She was born in the mid 940s. Her father was a wealthy land owner. As an only daughter it is acknowledged she was spoiled. Married twice to men who were attracted to her beauty. Elfrida gave birth to three sons. She lived to be an elderly woman. Her personality was assertive, bold, ambitious, head-strong, arrogant. As a result she offended people. Elfrida's strong personality in an age when women were to be submissive and obedient; rubbed people the wrong way and helped create a tarnished legacy.
Norton utilized the writings of a historian named Geoffrey Gaimar (1100s).
I'm impressed with Norton's ability to write a biography on a historical character that is both notorious and slight on information. She poured through records, especially from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle of Gaimar. Carefully she ascribed her work. It would have been easy to write a book on the authors thoughts and leanings; instead Norton focused on the facts. She is transparent is stating when something was a probability, or fact.
A strong point of this book is it gave me a better view of life in England during the later years of the Viking raids and before William the Conqueror invaded. These ancient Saxon years when men were valiant and women were damsels. Elfrida was not what I would call a damsel, but an audacious noblewoman and queen.
May 4, 2017
In 10th century England, the wife of the king was not necessarily crowned and anointed. This is a much deserved biography on the first queen of England to be crowned, Elfrida (aka Ælfthryth, Alfrida, or Elfthryth) who is better remembered for the accusations against her of murdering her step-son to put her own son on the throne. The third wife of Edgar the Peaceful, she was a key figure in the strengthening of the Church in England, and as regent for her young son.
Due to a lack of primary sources, biographies on women of early English history often wind up being more about the people and events around them then about the women themselves, but that did not feel like the case here. Never dull or dry, it gave a thorough view on who Elfrida was and why she not only deserves her own biography, but deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the accusations of murder against her. It really illuminates this period of history too, giving you a complete picture of the politics of the time.
This biography proves that Elfrida's much overlooked story is ripe for a historical drama.
Historical Readings & Reviews
Due to a lack of primary sources, biographies on women of early English history often wind up being more about the people and events around them then about the women themselves, but that did not feel like the case here. Never dull or dry, it gave a thorough view on who Elfrida was and why she not only deserves her own biography, but deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the accusations of murder against her. It really illuminates this period of history too, giving you a complete picture of the politics of the time.
This biography proves that Elfrida's much overlooked story is ripe for a historical drama.
Historical Readings & Reviews
February 8, 2019
Brilliant biography of one of the Saxon queens of England.
March 7, 2022
3.5 stars rounded up
This was interesting and I learned not only about Elfrida but also the times she lived and loved in.
As with most biographies of this time period, her story must be carefully picked out of records of the men surrounding her.
Sometimes she's a bit lost in her own narrative.
This was interesting and I learned not only about Elfrida but also the times she lived and loved in.
As with most biographies of this time period, her story must be carefully picked out of records of the men surrounding her.
Sometimes she's a bit lost in her own narrative.
August 22, 2018
This book succeeds in shedding light on a queen about whom there are few enough records and what records we have sometimes contradict each other. The author sifts through these, reducing the improbabilities, to reveal a picture of a tenth century English queen. My only complaint is that she splits off on tangents and meanders around her target a great deal, breaking momentum for the reader and causing occasional confusion. This book would be better without so much filler.
September 5, 2014
I understand that there may not much historical records on Elfrida but I would rather read what little there is than read entire sections on other people (mainly the men in Elrida's life) who were not really that interesting.
May 31, 2017
I thought this was fairly well done given the fact that there's not really any source material to go on. It was interesting.
Frustrating because everyone's names kept blending together and there actually had to be a family tree made at one point, but otherwise, no real complaints.
Frustrating because everyone's names kept blending together and there actually had to be a family tree made at one point, but otherwise, no real complaints.
March 19, 2024
Given the paucity of records from the time and the conflicting historical accounts, Elizabeth Norton did a fairly good job of outlining the life of Elfrida.
The first few chapters are a bit of hard work while the author sorts out the numerous options for fathers, uncles, daughters, step-daughters, first wives, second wives, etc. But, this is quite common for biographies of early medieval people. Similar names, varying spellings, and lack of records can make it difficult to nail down an individual, and this should not be read as a negative reflection on Elizabeth Norton's research and writing.
Once you can get to chapter 3, it becomes a reasonably light and easy to understand read.
Elizabeth Norton uses the available resources to present the varying accounts of Elfrida's life, and walks the reader through the possible, potential, and down right scurrilous accounts with plausible rationales as to which ones are most likely.
Yes, much of Elfrida's life is seen through the lens of the men around her, but again, this is down to lack of recording of women's lives, the way women were seen and represented at the time, and the substantial loss of records in the 1,000 years since Elfrida was Queen.
However, I would recommend that you start this book after some pre-reading of England in the 9th to 11th centuries - be it biographies of preceding and later kings, and/or general early English medieval history. There is a lot of 'name dropping' and passing references to key historical events. A little bit of prior knowledge of the time period does help in putting the events of Elfrida's life into the historical context.
The first few chapters are a bit of hard work while the author sorts out the numerous options for fathers, uncles, daughters, step-daughters, first wives, second wives, etc. But, this is quite common for biographies of early medieval people. Similar names, varying spellings, and lack of records can make it difficult to nail down an individual, and this should not be read as a negative reflection on Elizabeth Norton's research and writing.
Once you can get to chapter 3, it becomes a reasonably light and easy to understand read.
Elizabeth Norton uses the available resources to present the varying accounts of Elfrida's life, and walks the reader through the possible, potential, and down right scurrilous accounts with plausible rationales as to which ones are most likely.
Yes, much of Elfrida's life is seen through the lens of the men around her, but again, this is down to lack of recording of women's lives, the way women were seen and represented at the time, and the substantial loss of records in the 1,000 years since Elfrida was Queen.
However, I would recommend that you start this book after some pre-reading of England in the 9th to 11th centuries - be it biographies of preceding and later kings, and/or general early English medieval history. There is a lot of 'name dropping' and passing references to key historical events. A little bit of prior knowledge of the time period does help in putting the events of Elfrida's life into the historical context.
September 19, 2017
A fabulous look at the mid to late 900s through the life story of Elfrida. I've loved the tales about her (even the far fetched ones of her being a witch who seduced men when she was in her 50s), and this was a great detective look into what could be pieced together about her life.
December 5, 2019
Should have just been a longish article in an obscure Medieval Studies magazine.
April 8, 2016
A nice little biography set in one of my favourite periods of English history.
A well researched and concise study that helps to shed some light upon the 'Dark Ages' is always welcome, and Elizabeth Norton's work on the life of Elfrida certainly illuminates events in the late tenth century.
The text is throughout strongly based on Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, religious annals, primary source documents and many charters and manuscripts relating to the period and subject.
Sir Frank Stenton's 'Anglo-Saxon England' has long been one of my favourite books and I have always been more than happy to further delve into this Tolkienesque era.
The study of Queen Elfrida accompanies the reign of King Edgar (959-975) but also continues to her death at the turn of the eleventh century. A period that witnesses many important historical events, perhaps none more controversial than the murder of Edward the Martyr at Corfe in 978. Over one thousand years later, this largely remains a historical whodunit, but this author certainly provides for a re-appraisal of this coup.
A well researched and concise study that helps to shed some light upon the 'Dark Ages' is always welcome, and Elizabeth Norton's work on the life of Elfrida certainly illuminates events in the late tenth century.
The text is throughout strongly based on Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, religious annals, primary source documents and many charters and manuscripts relating to the period and subject.
Sir Frank Stenton's 'Anglo-Saxon England' has long been one of my favourite books and I have always been more than happy to further delve into this Tolkienesque era.
The study of Queen Elfrida accompanies the reign of King Edgar (959-975) but also continues to her death at the turn of the eleventh century. A period that witnesses many important historical events, perhaps none more controversial than the murder of Edward the Martyr at Corfe in 978. Over one thousand years later, this largely remains a historical whodunit, but this author certainly provides for a re-appraisal of this coup.
January 29, 2018
Norton makes a case for Elfrida (or Ælfthryth) being the first crowned queen of England. Because there are so few surviving contemporary documents mentioning Elfrida, much of the book focuses on events and males that would have known her. Norton does a good job attempting to flesh out the truth of Elfrida's life from various myths, lies, and embellishments regarding her life that were recorded by 11th and 12th century post-conquerer historians. This book will primarily appeal to people already familiar with the basics of 10th century Angl0-Saxon history. The rest of us, including myself, may struggle to follow her story. There are no maps, genealogical charts, or any such helpful tools: these would have been immensely helpful.
May 8, 2015
I'd give this two and half stars, if that was an option. It was a light read, for a history book, and for the most part a pleasant one (aside from the intermittently terrible grammar). Interesting subject, although I was expecting more detail about the period and less assurance on what certain personages were thinking at any given moment, given that they didn't leave diaries and letters for us to read. I know vanity presses leave it to the writers to have their work checked for errors, but I didn't think Amberley was a vanity outfit--if even reputable presses are dispensing with their editorial departments, English-language academic publishing is going to be in sad state.
October 30, 2018
Generally, I’m a sucker for English history, esp when I know little about the subject. I had never heard of Elfrida, the Anglo-Saxon, first crowned Queen of England. She is apparently famous for murdering her stepson so that her own son could be king, and for tenth-century religious reform. Quite an unlikely combo in one woman!
It turns out that little is known about Elfrida, so the book is slim and the amount of factual information is even slimmer. What is known could have been presented less drily as well. Elfrida sounds like a prototype for George RR Martin’s Cersei Lannister; in this book, we barely meet Elfrida, much less develop any feeling for her, love or hate.
It turns out that little is known about Elfrida, so the book is slim and the amount of factual information is even slimmer. What is known could have been presented less drily as well. Elfrida sounds like a prototype for George RR Martin’s Cersei Lannister; in this book, we barely meet Elfrida, much less develop any feeling for her, love or hate.
June 30, 2021
This book is fantastic if you like English history. I learned so much! There is an enormous amount of thrilling true stories throughout history. I also had no idea women actively witnessed charters, ran abbies and estates, and sometimes were mistresses of their own destinies. This book illustrates a few examples of strong women leaders of the era.
November 4, 2015
The lack of available sources for the subject-matter makes the story of Elfrida (Aelftryth) not as interesting as it could have been. You can't blame the author for this, she has done a great job with what she had, but it does make the book less fun to read than I could have wished for.
June 20, 2018
I have read a few Elizabeth Norton books and find this follows the same pattern. A lot information about the people around the subject but not any on the actual person, makes for a boring read.
February 12, 2020
This isn't a bad book, but it does suffer a few shortcomings. These are structural and historical.
Structural:
It doesn't stay focussed on Ælfthryth that much, but is a life and times. Some background is useful, but you don't come away feeling that you know that much more about her than you did at the beginning.
The spelling of names. Norton simplifies these, which can be seen as either making it more accessible to people, or dumbing down. Take your pick. However, Elfrida isn't that much more alien to most folk than Ælfthryth and Ethelred not a zillion miles from Æthelræd and it would be better if she were more consistent, as in the quotes from original sources, the original spellings are maintained.
There are no maps showing the location of significant places in relation to each other, no time line showing events and above all no genealogical tables, which for a book that focuses so much on family relationships is a real missed opportunity.
Whilst not full of spelling mistake and grammatical issues, there are still things such as Ecgwynn being spelt correctly once, but rendered as Ecgwyna the next couple of times and a monastery having clerks instead of clerics. Insert your own scriptorium gag in triplicate here.
There are also a few oddities like the Morgengifu being described, but not actually named and a murderous 9th century Queen of Wessex described, but also not named, only to be actually named in another chapter (Eadburh wife of Beorhtric who married in 789 and was probably better described as 8th Century). Neither are big issues, but could have just been dealt with a little bit better.
At times it becomes a sea of names, similar names and although I followed who was who, I've read a few books on Anglo-Saxon history, but to new comers, it must be quite a challenge to remember who is who.
Historical:
There is a lot of supposition in this book, such as saying that: Ælfthryth's father in law was a man used to getting his own way and 'Given that Ælfthryth was unlikely to tolerate another queen at court'. Neither have their place in a history book and there are more of these.
There are also some inaccuracies, such as losing a generation when describing who was a great-great-grandson, although she does get that correct a few paragraphs later, so this is also an editing issue.
She mentions Ælfweard being murdered – but I think she was actually thinking of the claims that Edwin was murdered (something she takes more seriously than many). In a similar vein, she gives the late stories of Edith being approached to rule more weight than most would, too.
Norton believes that Æthelræd's first wife is unknown, but it was Ælfgifu.
Norton uses a lot of late and self evidently problematic sources and I can understand why given the paucity of material on Ælfthryth. She does comment on their reliability, but after a while you get a bit fed up with reading something that you know is of limited historical value to the period and is more of a guide as to how she was seen much later. Other people may see this as being close to filler.
On the positive side, Norton is pretty decent on the role of women in later Anglo-Saxon England. She also quotes original sources and it doesn't feel as if it's been patched up from just reading the works of other historians. It's a valiant effort to write about a poorly sourced person, even if I don't think it really comes off.
Structural:
It doesn't stay focussed on Ælfthryth that much, but is a life and times. Some background is useful, but you don't come away feeling that you know that much more about her than you did at the beginning.
The spelling of names. Norton simplifies these, which can be seen as either making it more accessible to people, or dumbing down. Take your pick. However, Elfrida isn't that much more alien to most folk than Ælfthryth and Ethelred not a zillion miles from Æthelræd and it would be better if she were more consistent, as in the quotes from original sources, the original spellings are maintained.
There are no maps showing the location of significant places in relation to each other, no time line showing events and above all no genealogical tables, which for a book that focuses so much on family relationships is a real missed opportunity.
Whilst not full of spelling mistake and grammatical issues, there are still things such as Ecgwynn being spelt correctly once, but rendered as Ecgwyna the next couple of times and a monastery having clerks instead of clerics. Insert your own scriptorium gag in triplicate here.
There are also a few oddities like the Morgengifu being described, but not actually named and a murderous 9th century Queen of Wessex described, but also not named, only to be actually named in another chapter (Eadburh wife of Beorhtric who married in 789 and was probably better described as 8th Century). Neither are big issues, but could have just been dealt with a little bit better.
At times it becomes a sea of names, similar names and although I followed who was who, I've read a few books on Anglo-Saxon history, but to new comers, it must be quite a challenge to remember who is who.
Historical:
There is a lot of supposition in this book, such as saying that: Ælfthryth's father in law was a man used to getting his own way and 'Given that Ælfthryth was unlikely to tolerate another queen at court'. Neither have their place in a history book and there are more of these.
There are also some inaccuracies, such as losing a generation when describing who was a great-great-grandson, although she does get that correct a few paragraphs later, so this is also an editing issue.
She mentions Ælfweard being murdered – but I think she was actually thinking of the claims that Edwin was murdered (something she takes more seriously than many). In a similar vein, she gives the late stories of Edith being approached to rule more weight than most would, too.
Norton believes that Æthelræd's first wife is unknown, but it was Ælfgifu.
Norton uses a lot of late and self evidently problematic sources and I can understand why given the paucity of material on Ælfthryth. She does comment on their reliability, but after a while you get a bit fed up with reading something that you know is of limited historical value to the period and is more of a guide as to how she was seen much later. Other people may see this as being close to filler.
On the positive side, Norton is pretty decent on the role of women in later Anglo-Saxon England. She also quotes original sources and it doesn't feel as if it's been patched up from just reading the works of other historians. It's a valiant effort to write about a poorly sourced person, even if I don't think it really comes off.
March 16, 2024
Elfrida (alternate spelling: Ælfthryth) is mostly remembered as the woman who had her stepson, King Edward the Martyr, murdered so her son Ethelred could take the throne. She's the archetype wicked stepmother. She was much more than that. She was the first crowned and anointed queen of a united England. She had beauty, wealth, brains, and power in her own right.
Her father Ordgar was a powerful and wealthy man in Cornwall and the west country. She was educated along with her brother, gifted in languages, and was her father's favorite so much so that he relied on her advice. She was well-propertied with booklands (properties that were hers alone and not subject to being taken by the crown), and her dowry was extensive.
Ethelwold, son of the most powerful Ealdorman in England, was sent by King Edgar to see if she was as beautiful as reported. He was already married but intended to put his wife away to marry Elfrida. Ethelwold lied to the king, married her himself, and quickly got her pregnant. When the child was born, Ethelwold asked the king to be godfather, to make a relationship in church law to Elfrida that would bar him from marring her. Edgar finally barged into their house to get a look at her. According to legend, they fell in love at first sight. A short time later, Ethelwold was killed in a hunting accident, and Edgar married her. So says legend, but there is absolutely no evidence of any of it, including Ethelwold's murder. This is the pattern that follows Elfrida around, even today. There are lots of accusations, not one bit of evidence.
What we do know is that Elfrida and King Edgar married two years after the death of Ethelwold. Edgar was a controversial man. He had several wives and many mistresses before he married Elfrida. Afterward, we don't know. What we do know is that both Edgar and Elfrida were very involved in the church reform movement along with Bishop Ethelwold (lots of people with the same names in this book, so make notes). The Catholic faith was in crisis in England. Viking raids had destroyed a good many churches and monasteries and practically killed its practice in the north of England. Priests married, lay clerics held the power in most monasteries, and none of the houses followed any rule.
On the continent, Benedictine Rule was used, and Edgar, Elfrida, and Bishop Ethelwold all took up the cause of church reform, which created powerful enemies. Edgar called a council, and they adopted church reform designating Elfrida as "protectress and fearless guardian of the monasteries." Then, they removed the powerful lay clerks and enforced the Rule of St. Benedict, and founded new monasteries and convents based on the Benedictine Rule. Elfrida even put her kinswomen in charge of the new convents - a decision that came back to bite her later as some of the most outlandish and damaging stories about her were started and spread by these same women!
After 14 years as king, the 30 year old Edgar decided to be crowned again in Bath in 973. He had made all religious houses submit to the Benedictine Rule, and considered it time to give the country another show of his power. Along with his coronation, Elfrida was also officially crowned Queen of England, though she had already been consecrated. The ceremony was magnificent. Now he considered himself as an Imperial power as he had the Scots, Cambrian, and the eight petty kings swear allegiance to him. Then, he standardized the currency, weights and measures, and lawcode. In the charters of this period, you will find Elfrida's signature right at the top, after the King and Bishop Ethelwold.
It was then, at the height of their power, catastrophe struck on July 8, 975 when Edgar suddenly died. The crown was now in contention between his elder son Edward, by his first wife, and his younger son Ethelred, by Queen Elfrida. Edward was about 14 or 15; Ethelred was about 7. At this time there were no hard and fast rules about succession. Preferred were the Æthelings, meaning son of a king, or more loosely throne-worthy. No one wanted a regency, so Edward was the clear choice, and he was crowned a year after Edgar died. Contemporary sources reported him as having a cruel and foul temper, so Elfrida took her young son to her stronghold at Corfe.
Strangely, there were many bad omens during his short reign. First, a comet appeared in the sky. Then the second floor council room floor collapsed, killing or maiming all of his councilors. Luckily, he was not there. But his luck ran out on March 18, 978, when he was assassinated in front of the Corfe residence of Queen Elfrida. This was also the beginning of the horrible rumors spread about her.
The death was horrible. Edward was stabbed, his arms broken, and as he slid from his saddle his foot got caught and the horse dragged him, breaking his legs and ribs. Mercifully he was already dead before the horse took off. Who struck the blow? We know that Ealdorman Elfhere, kinsman to Elfrida, was there and there was bad blood between him and King Edward. He later did public penance for the murder. The question is what, if anything did Elfrida know? There is no hard evidence for any involvement by her. But it happened in front of her house, and they did not give Edward a proper burial as befit a king.
After weighing the hard evidence, or lack thereof, Norton concludes Elfrida was guiltless. Her arguments are good ones too. Regardless a regency was set up for young Ethelred with the Queen and Bishop Ethelwold foremost in it. She refused to give it up when Ethelred reached 16, the age of majority at that time and he resented it greatly. When Bishop Ethelwold died in 984, Ethelred took power and banished his mother to Corfe. He quickly married and began having copious children. Tellingly, we don't even know his wife's name, and he kept her out of power.
As his children came and he got older, he did put the education of his children in Elfrida's hands, and she did an excellent job of it. In 993, the king allowed his mother back at Court after 9 years of exile and did her honor by calling her a wonderful mother and thanking her. But times were bad. The Vikings began not only raiding but demanding Danegeld to be paid to stop the devastation, every year demanding more and more money, until they stopped raiding and started conquering territory. England would never be the same, and Anglo-Saxon England would disappear forever.
Elfrida did not live to see the mess Ethelred made. She died around 1000 or 1001, aged in her mid 50s, considered very old. Her son honored her, but the monasteries and convents continued to blacken her reputation, naming her as a murderer and slandering her in any and every way. They wrote the chronicles, and they elevated Edward to martyrdom and sainthood by influencing the king to do so officially after his mother died. King Edward became Edward the Martyr, the name he still has today, and Elfrida is still called the archetype wicked stepmother and a murderer.
I know this is probably one of the longest of my reviews. The funny thing is the book is one of the shortest, at just shy of 200 pages of text, about a woman the author herself says doesn't appear in many contemporary sources. There are the charters she signed and one complete letter written by her to the courts hearing a property case. It is the first letter written by a queen of England in any archive. But there is a lot of downright slander about her in later chronicles, and the later they were written the more lurid they are - kind of like a written game of telephone with the most outrageous winning the prize.
Did she do it? Did she have her stepson murdered? As an American, I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. There are shadows and doubt in the written records.
Her father Ordgar was a powerful and wealthy man in Cornwall and the west country. She was educated along with her brother, gifted in languages, and was her father's favorite so much so that he relied on her advice. She was well-propertied with booklands (properties that were hers alone and not subject to being taken by the crown), and her dowry was extensive.
Ethelwold, son of the most powerful Ealdorman in England, was sent by King Edgar to see if she was as beautiful as reported. He was already married but intended to put his wife away to marry Elfrida. Ethelwold lied to the king, married her himself, and quickly got her pregnant. When the child was born, Ethelwold asked the king to be godfather, to make a relationship in church law to Elfrida that would bar him from marring her. Edgar finally barged into their house to get a look at her. According to legend, they fell in love at first sight. A short time later, Ethelwold was killed in a hunting accident, and Edgar married her. So says legend, but there is absolutely no evidence of any of it, including Ethelwold's murder. This is the pattern that follows Elfrida around, even today. There are lots of accusations, not one bit of evidence.
What we do know is that Elfrida and King Edgar married two years after the death of Ethelwold. Edgar was a controversial man. He had several wives and many mistresses before he married Elfrida. Afterward, we don't know. What we do know is that both Edgar and Elfrida were very involved in the church reform movement along with Bishop Ethelwold (lots of people with the same names in this book, so make notes). The Catholic faith was in crisis in England. Viking raids had destroyed a good many churches and monasteries and practically killed its practice in the north of England. Priests married, lay clerics held the power in most monasteries, and none of the houses followed any rule.
On the continent, Benedictine Rule was used, and Edgar, Elfrida, and Bishop Ethelwold all took up the cause of church reform, which created powerful enemies. Edgar called a council, and they adopted church reform designating Elfrida as "protectress and fearless guardian of the monasteries." Then, they removed the powerful lay clerks and enforced the Rule of St. Benedict, and founded new monasteries and convents based on the Benedictine Rule. Elfrida even put her kinswomen in charge of the new convents - a decision that came back to bite her later as some of the most outlandish and damaging stories about her were started and spread by these same women!
After 14 years as king, the 30 year old Edgar decided to be crowned again in Bath in 973. He had made all religious houses submit to the Benedictine Rule, and considered it time to give the country another show of his power. Along with his coronation, Elfrida was also officially crowned Queen of England, though she had already been consecrated. The ceremony was magnificent. Now he considered himself as an Imperial power as he had the Scots, Cambrian, and the eight petty kings swear allegiance to him. Then, he standardized the currency, weights and measures, and lawcode. In the charters of this period, you will find Elfrida's signature right at the top, after the King and Bishop Ethelwold.
It was then, at the height of their power, catastrophe struck on July 8, 975 when Edgar suddenly died. The crown was now in contention between his elder son Edward, by his first wife, and his younger son Ethelred, by Queen Elfrida. Edward was about 14 or 15; Ethelred was about 7. At this time there were no hard and fast rules about succession. Preferred were the Æthelings, meaning son of a king, or more loosely throne-worthy. No one wanted a regency, so Edward was the clear choice, and he was crowned a year after Edgar died. Contemporary sources reported him as having a cruel and foul temper, so Elfrida took her young son to her stronghold at Corfe.
Strangely, there were many bad omens during his short reign. First, a comet appeared in the sky. Then the second floor council room floor collapsed, killing or maiming all of his councilors. Luckily, he was not there. But his luck ran out on March 18, 978, when he was assassinated in front of the Corfe residence of Queen Elfrida. This was also the beginning of the horrible rumors spread about her.
The death was horrible. Edward was stabbed, his arms broken, and as he slid from his saddle his foot got caught and the horse dragged him, breaking his legs and ribs. Mercifully he was already dead before the horse took off. Who struck the blow? We know that Ealdorman Elfhere, kinsman to Elfrida, was there and there was bad blood between him and King Edward. He later did public penance for the murder. The question is what, if anything did Elfrida know? There is no hard evidence for any involvement by her. But it happened in front of her house, and they did not give Edward a proper burial as befit a king.
After weighing the hard evidence, or lack thereof, Norton concludes Elfrida was guiltless. Her arguments are good ones too. Regardless a regency was set up for young Ethelred with the Queen and Bishop Ethelwold foremost in it. She refused to give it up when Ethelred reached 16, the age of majority at that time and he resented it greatly. When Bishop Ethelwold died in 984, Ethelred took power and banished his mother to Corfe. He quickly married and began having copious children. Tellingly, we don't even know his wife's name, and he kept her out of power.
As his children came and he got older, he did put the education of his children in Elfrida's hands, and she did an excellent job of it. In 993, the king allowed his mother back at Court after 9 years of exile and did her honor by calling her a wonderful mother and thanking her. But times were bad. The Vikings began not only raiding but demanding Danegeld to be paid to stop the devastation, every year demanding more and more money, until they stopped raiding and started conquering territory. England would never be the same, and Anglo-Saxon England would disappear forever.
Elfrida did not live to see the mess Ethelred made. She died around 1000 or 1001, aged in her mid 50s, considered very old. Her son honored her, but the monasteries and convents continued to blacken her reputation, naming her as a murderer and slandering her in any and every way. They wrote the chronicles, and they elevated Edward to martyrdom and sainthood by influencing the king to do so officially after his mother died. King Edward became Edward the Martyr, the name he still has today, and Elfrida is still called the archetype wicked stepmother and a murderer.
I know this is probably one of the longest of my reviews. The funny thing is the book is one of the shortest, at just shy of 200 pages of text, about a woman the author herself says doesn't appear in many contemporary sources. There are the charters she signed and one complete letter written by her to the courts hearing a property case. It is the first letter written by a queen of England in any archive. But there is a lot of downright slander about her in later chronicles, and the later they were written the more lurid they are - kind of like a written game of telephone with the most outrageous winning the prize.
Did she do it? Did she have her stepson murdered? As an American, I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. There are shadows and doubt in the written records.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2019
The first problem with this book was the lack of a genealogy in the front. If you are going to discuss 7 generations of a family, keeping relationships straight is important to the reader. The second problem was a lack of consistency in nomenclature. Most of these Anglo-Saxon names fell out of common usage long ago. The author mentions simplifying the spelling at the beginning but then doesn't do it consistently. Then there are many people with the same name and she does not consistently differentiate between them. Elfrida was married to man named Ethelwold, was lifelong friends with another man named Ethelwold, and there was mention of what may have been a third Ethelwold late in Elfrida's life. Consistently referring to her husband Ethelwold as Ethelwold of East Anglia and the churchman who was her friend as Ethelwold, Bishop of York would have helped to keep them straight. There were also at least three Ethelflaeds, several Elfgifus, numerous Edwards, etc. They need to identified every time by a title or a place of origin and to reiterate, one could then refer back to a family tree to follow the relationships, had one been included. Finally, Elfrida's actual name was Aelfthryth. Elfrida is the Latinized version that the author says she has chosen to use in the beginning of the book. On at least one occasion, the author refers to her as Aelfthryth in a sentence that is not a direct quote from a primary source. Some quotes are indented and separated in the text but short ones aren't. Every time Aelfthryth appears in a quote, it would have been useful to put [Elfrida] next to it so there was no doubt we were talking about the same Aelfthryth. Little primary source material is left from the tenth century so there is a great deal of speculation, rumor, and clearly incorrect information available from secondary sources. I recently read a biography of Eleanor of Castile that had similar situations. It was handled much more clearly and I learned a lot. Unfortunately, this author failed to provide as much clarity about an equally fascinating historical figure.
January 3, 2022
Four stars for such a well-researched and interesting history! One star off for not including a family tree. I know, I know. A whole star deducted for no family tree? Yes indeed! Because Anglo-Saxon names are all similar and are used throughout the generations many times. It would have been so helpful to have a family tree so I could figure out which Ethelred or Aelfgifu we are talking about in each context. This is especially true because the narrative jumps between generations frequently. It would have been so handy to have a family tree at the beginning of the book to flip back to!
My other small critique: Elfrida’s real name in Anglo-Saxon English was Ælfthryth. Why doesn’t the book just use her real name instead of “latinizing” it to Elfrida? I suppose Elfrida may seen more accessible than Ælfthryth but most other historical sources, quoted in this book as well as the sources I found online, use Ælfthryth. This leads to unnecessary confusion where you have to think, “Oh yeah, right. That’s Elfrida. Ælfthryth is Elfrida.” Totally unnecessary! If I can keep track of various Ethelreds, Aelfgifus, Æthelflæds and Ethelwines without a family tree, then I can sure as hell cope with Ælfthryth!
My other small critique: Elfrida’s real name in Anglo-Saxon English was Ælfthryth. Why doesn’t the book just use her real name instead of “latinizing” it to Elfrida? I suppose Elfrida may seen more accessible than Ælfthryth but most other historical sources, quoted in this book as well as the sources I found online, use Ælfthryth. This leads to unnecessary confusion where you have to think, “Oh yeah, right. That’s Elfrida. Ælfthryth is Elfrida.” Totally unnecessary! If I can keep track of various Ethelreds, Aelfgifus, Æthelflæds and Ethelwines without a family tree, then I can sure as hell cope with Ælfthryth!
July 26, 2017
Ok, well, I can definitely see the progression of Elizabeth Norton as a writer, in reading this earlier volume of her work -- the meticulous research is still present, but the narrative laid over those carefully arranged bones is less well developed than her later work. It could also be that the sources from the 900s are far less in depth or available than later Tudor ones, but I found this to be a much more scholarly and dry work on the whole. I also think that there's a lot of positive thinking as opposed to actual evidence produced in her attempt to exonerate Queen Elfrida of her possibly murderous activities, but again, she's working with a mystery that's more than a thousand years old, so points for even trying.
The one thing that I really think this book could benefit from is a family tree, with coronations indicated. Especially giving the incredibly confusing naming conventions of the Anglo Saxons, it would help to keep the many Edmunds/Edwards/Edgars/Eagwigs, etc separate in the mind of the reader. Fascinating book, on a fascinating person. I hope more information eventually comes to light.
The one thing that I really think this book could benefit from is a family tree, with coronations indicated. Especially giving the incredibly confusing naming conventions of the Anglo Saxons, it would help to keep the many Edmunds/Edwards/Edgars/Eagwigs, etc separate in the mind of the reader. Fascinating book, on a fascinating person. I hope more information eventually comes to light.
February 4, 2020
This is the type of book that kept me reading right up until the last page. I didn't even know it was the previous page, the book ended so abruptly, and I was left staring in shock at the acknowledgments a page later.
I think Elizabeth Norton did an excellent job at using the information available about Elfrida (which is admittedly not a lot) in combination with information about the period and other women, in general, to infer what information we don't have.
The one thing that I enjoyed but understand that some others might now is the way that Elizabeth Norton wrote the book. The style is arid, with no added fluff and only the straight forward facts, which makes the book feel packed with an enormous amount of information for its short page count. But I could understand that others would find it boring. I think that the dry style is partly due to the topic, with no extra fluff to be added available, as well as the way that Norton utilizes primary sources. Either way, I didn't mind it, especially since those primary sources benefitted the overall narrative.
I think Elizabeth Norton did an excellent job at using the information available about Elfrida (which is admittedly not a lot) in combination with information about the period and other women, in general, to infer what information we don't have.
The one thing that I enjoyed but understand that some others might now is the way that Elizabeth Norton wrote the book. The style is arid, with no added fluff and only the straight forward facts, which makes the book feel packed with an enormous amount of information for its short page count. But I could understand that others would find it boring. I think that the dry style is partly due to the topic, with no extra fluff to be added available, as well as the way that Norton utilizes primary sources. Either way, I didn't mind it, especially since those primary sources benefitted the overall narrative.
July 6, 2022
An interesting read about a female figure that had importance the Anglo Saxon era. It was a bit confusing however, since there was no family tree, sketchy family relations, and a lack of proof of pretty much everything. The author tries to give her a better reputation - one that looks at her religious reform, her political importance and the problems a woman of power had during this period. Nonetheless I think that although she may not have personally killed Edward the Martyr, I believe the contemporary views that she was behind it. It would have been just as easy to write about Elfrida as a selfish, power hungry person who would do anything to get what she was after. Sure she was a good religious founder but the Church and politics in this time period were basically one and the same thing.
March 5, 2024
Having some knowledge of 10th century England, I knew of Elfrida's posthumous reputation for being responsible for the murder (or planning of the murder) of her stepson (known to history as Edward the Martyr) to make the way for her own son (Ethelred the Unready) to take the crown.
This work really brought her to life for me, especially in an era when primary sources are vague, especially about women. It was fascinating to learn she was the first wife of an English king to be crowned Queen and of her role in the reform of the church.
I give credit to the author who has thoroughly researched this time period and set the political scene, with Elfrida always shining through. She is never a shadow in the background and the author's conclusions about her involvement in the murder (or not) of her stepson are really thorough and sound.
This work really brought her to life for me, especially in an era when primary sources are vague, especially about women. It was fascinating to learn she was the first wife of an English king to be crowned Queen and of her role in the reform of the church.
I give credit to the author who has thoroughly researched this time period and set the political scene, with Elfrida always shining through. She is never a shadow in the background and the author's conclusions about her involvement in the murder (or not) of her stepson are really thorough and sound.
May 27, 2019
Quite an achievement to piece together so much about this woman's life from relatively little evidence - wills, lives of saints, witness lists, a very few letters. However, the style is stodgy at times, and the omission of family trees made it less easy to follow, especially as some individuals, including the central figure, have a number of different variant spellings of their names. The writer at times makes assumptions about emotional reactions and relationships based on limited evidence, but Aethelfryth still remains a distant figure, whose motives and character are not easy to fathom.
July 29, 2022
BOOK REVIEW ⭐️⭐️⭐️
I listened to this author on a history podcast, and picked up the book in question. This is a fascinating story of the first crowned Queen Consort of the unified kingdom of England. No one messed with Elfrida, that’s for sure. This was fun and brief.
#bibliophile #book #bookish #booklover #books #books2022 #booksofinstagram #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #bookstagrammers #bookworm #homelibrary #instabook #instabooks #reader #readers #reading #readingroom #readersofinstagram #bookreview
2022 📚 38
I listened to this author on a history podcast, and picked up the book in question. This is a fascinating story of the first crowned Queen Consort of the unified kingdom of England. No one messed with Elfrida, that’s for sure. This was fun and brief.
#bibliophile #book #bookish #booklover #books #books2022 #booksofinstagram #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #bookstagrammers #bookworm #homelibrary #instabook #instabooks #reader #readers #reading #readingroom #readersofinstagram #bookreview
2022 📚 38
January 6, 2023
I like the fact that authors are taking more of an interest in these women long remembered for one pivotal moment, whether they were involved or not. The writing was good although not captivating at all times, and the story was enjoyable, stringing out the small pieces of knowledge we have about Ælfthryth.
However, sometimes this book could be a little confusing. It had a tendency with timelines to jump around a little and with all the similar names of the period this could prove difficult to unpick.
However, sometimes this book could be a little confusing. It had a tendency with timelines to jump around a little and with all the similar names of the period this could prove difficult to unpick.
July 26, 2018
Anglo Saxon names are really confusing. A writer has to be really clear therefore to compensate. Unfortunately this author isn’t and I was often at a loss as to what was happening. Someone with a greater knowledge of the period might find the book more useful but for a casual reader I would say skip it. I also felt the author was too trusting of the written sources.
June 24, 2022
This is an excellent biography considering the scarcity of source material. Anglo-Saxon names and relationships are a minefield to work through, but Elizabeth Norton guides the reader efficiently through the complex characters. The result is a well thought out and interesting history of a little known Queen of England.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews