Rulers of the South Saxons 477-c.796.

WELCOME TO THIS RECONSTRUCTED DYNASTIC HISTORY.
The interpretive strength of an hypothesis, based on reliable reference, has been used to accomplish this venture.
DEDICATION: To Anne, the author's wife.
URL: anglo-saxonkingsofsussex.blogspot.com
INTERNET: An illustrated version of this site on Kessler History Files/Kingdom of the South Saxons on Google, VerveEarth: Location/Winchester and Blogger Search.
CONTACT: email, beowlff@gmail.com
LOGO: [SSEAXE]
LINKS: Thoughts on the Meonware and Meonware Supporting Notes by David Slaughter, on Kessler History Files.
A SOUTH SAXON TIMELINE based on the Nothgyth Quest by David Slaughter, on URL: dslaughter.blogspot.com --- Scroll down to the end for 'About Me' and go to 'View my complete profile', then go to 'David Slaughter's Blogs' and click on 'View this Blog' for the Timeline.


CONTENTS OF THE HYPOTHESIS AND THE SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY:

THE INTRODUCTION TO THE QUEST.
1) General Guidance.
2) The Perspective.
3) The Royal Legend of the South Saxons.
4) Establishing the Hypothesis.
SECTION I, Aellean Warlordship 477-514 and Cissan Kingdom 514-567
ENTRIES FOR ?Haegel, Wlanca, Aelle of Sussex, Mealla, Cymen Wlencing and Cissa of Sussex, Cissbury Rings, Wine Cissing and Cuthwine, respectively.
SECTION II, The Dynasty of Ecgwald (?Cuthwulfing) 686-772
ENTRIES FOR Ecgwald, Nothgyth, Nothhelm, Osric, Bishop Osa/Oswald, Osmund, Oswald, Aelfwald and Osric and his charter.
SECTION III, The Rule of Regnal South Saxon Chieftains 567-645.
1) The Chieftains.
2) The (Conjectural) Agnatic Witenagemot in 567.
SECTION IV, The Dynasty of Aethelwalh (?Cynegilsing) 645-772
ENTRIES FOR Aethelwalh, Eafe of Hwicce, Watt*, Berhthun* and Andhun*, Bryni*, Aethelthryth, Aethelstan, Aethelred, Ealdred, Ealdwulf and Aethelwulf. *Conjectured as illegitimate.
SECTION V, The Censoring of History, with reference to King Aelfred and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.
SECTION VI, Reconstructed List of Kings and Rulers 477-c796 (There being no known authentic list in existance).
THE CONCLUSION, arguing that the authority of kingship amongst the nobility in Sussex was basically shared.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER.
Includes information on the General Bibliography.

GENERAL BIBLOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES:
a) Primary Reading and Reference.
b) Secodary Reading and Reference.
d) Further Reading and Reference.
c) Supplementary Reading.



INTRODUCING THE AUTHOR.
The hypothesis was researched and written by David Slaughter, BA Hons, ATC(Sussex), Blue Robe Order of the Welsh Gorsedd. The author was born in 1937. He was brought up and educated in Sussex. His father's family were once saddlers in Steyning and his mother's family came from South Wales. He is a retired teacher and now lives in Winchester.



[SSEAXE] THE NOTHGYTH QUEST HYPOTHESIS WRITTEN IN LIKE SPIRIT WITH THE CONJECTURE THAT AELLE LANDED IN 457, BUT WITH A GREATER SPAN AND MORE CIRCUMSPECTION.

If I ever become a rich man,
Or if ever I grow to be old,
I will build a house with deep thatch
To shelter me from the cold,
And there shall Sussex songs be sung
And the story of Sussex told. ~~ Hilaire Belloc


THE INTRODUCTION TO THE NOTHGYTH QUEST.

1) GENERAL GUIDANCE.
This hypothesis is a quest for the Lineage of South Saxon Rulers. Bare in mind that the bias of this article is theoretical. All the entries on individual noblemen begin thus: AETHELWALH, born early 620's?. The date of birth refers to a generation time scale, used here as a theoretical scaffold, of 27 years divided into 3 year spans. The starting point is the assumption that Aelle was about 64 when he died, alledgedly in 514. Please note that quite apart from the genealogical theory of the hypothesis, a certain amount of documented history and remembered tradition has been modified by conjectural input as well. This has been necessary to support the chain of events proposed here. Wherever possible, without overburdening the text, the reader has been alerted when this occurs. A bibliography is to be found after the reconstructed list of kings and rulers. In the entries for individual names, the most important of these rulers are indicated thus: -)||(- The abbreviation MWO, found in Section 3, = Modern Welsh orthography.

2) THE PERSPECTIVE.
Firstly, careful considerarion has been given to the remembered tradition concerning the opening ninety years of Sussex that might be identified as the Royal Legend of the South Saxons. Although, with the exception of Aelle, most historians give no credence to what little has survived for the reason that it is not documented in a reliable source. Secondly, careful thought has also been given to the warrior world of post-Roman Britain from a wide range of material. The aim has been to establish an hypothesis on the lineage of the South Saxon rulers and in so doing to cover the later Sussex based kings and aldermen, who continue to remain obscure. The writer believes that presenting an hypothesis as an alternative to the familiar blank canvas of South Saxon history could be of benefit. Sadly, the early story of Sussex lacks documentation, and even where the names of her later princes are known, any understanding of the relationship between them remains at best very limited. Establishing this hypothesis, therefore, is an attempt to give an alternative viewpoint by presenting carefully considered theory in an attempt to make up for the historical void. At least for those who may find interest in the content of this hypothesis, there is something to consider or even to return to. Except for the writer's original text, its ideas can be theoretically extended, reconstructed or otherwise modified and the outcome used for whatever legitimate purpose. It is essential to understand that, while the Nothgyth Quest seeks to be consistent and honest within the terms its own constraints and boundaries, as a conjecture it is not always able to follow the expected disciplines when dealing with incontrovertible evidence of whatever source or catagory. Without a structured theoretical approach of some form, because there is no authoritive history available against which to measure the value of any statement or to judge its accuracy, no discussion on what might have been the early dynastic story of the South Saxons, say after 491 and before 675, can be developed. Inevitably, many historians will say it would have been better to have left well alone and that there is no place for an hypothesis. Archaeologists may be inclined to the same opinion. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this Quest may prove attractive and perhaps even intriguing to those who enjoy reading about the possibilities that an hypothesis can seek to propose. It is likely that such readers will have strong links to Sussex or have ancestry that can be traced back to the South Saxons. They may also have an interest in the English Heptarchy and its often forgotten, formative influence on what is now England.

3) THE ROYAL LEGEND OF THE SOUTH SAXONS. Tradition has held, and the Anglo-saxon Chronicles have recorded, that Aelle landed from Gaul at Cymen’s Shore in 477, with his three sons Cymen, Wlencing and Cissa, with three keel-loads of warriors. There was a battle between the Saxons and the Welsh (that is, the strangers) at the unidentified Mearcred’s Burn (but see the entry for Aelle below) in 485, and six years later, in 491, Aelle conquered the coastal strip and captured the Roman fort at Pevensey with the aid of his youngest son Cissa. There is an old local tradition that the Britons made their last stand on Mount Cayburn which doubtless was once part of the legend. It was told that Aelle was the first Bretwalda, and it was also claimed that he was the first king of the South Saxons. After Aelle’s death at Mount Badon in 514, his son Cissa followed him as king, making Noviomagus Reginorum his royal centre, renaming the Roman town Cissan Ceaster. There is a remnant of this tradition, which survived locally, relating that his son Wincheling founded Winchelsea. Tradition also held that Cissa was still king 72 years after his reign began (perhaps referring originally to the death of an heir at this point), and that he eventually died in 590, after reigning for 76 years. A piece of the South Saxon aural history also recounted that Highdown Hill was the burial place of their pagan kings. Presumably, by later generations, Cissa was believed to have died at about the same age as the biblical Adam. On Cissa’s death, it was told, the kingdom of the South Saxons passed to Ceawlin, King of the West Saxons. The royal legend presented here has only survived in fragments and, as it stands, has a number of difficulties. For one, the story of Cissa it is not feasible in terms of time scale. However, the remains of this oral tradition, identified here as the Royal Legend of the South Saxons, undoubtedly hides the historical truth, and it can be demonstrated that some of its narrative could prove feasible, if not verifiable, by a radical attempt to restructure the extant fragments.

4) ESTABLISHING THE HYPOTHESIS.
It is known, because of the evidence found in Sussex place names, that the coast of the sub-Roman region formerly held by the Regni, sometimes referred to as Rhegin, was settled in the late fifth century by some forty chieftains, most of whom were likely to have risen from the ranks of the aristocratic warriors of the Warlord Aelle and a blood relative called Wlanca (see the reconstruction hypothesis below). By comparing patronymic place names in Sussex in terms of Anglo-Saxon naming patterns, evidence might be found that amongst them there could have been kinsmen. Was the usurpation of sub-Roman Rhegin, and turning it into a Germanican Sussex, an organised enterprise? It would have been during this period, near Mount Cayburn where the local British warriors made their last stand after the destruction of Pevensey, that South Malling was founded by a cheiftain called Mealla. Mount Cayburn would have been about an eighteen mile march from the destroyed Roman fort, and perhaps Mealla founded his settlement soon after the Cayburn battle which must followed the British loss of Pevensey. Moreover Maella is a name easily compounded over time with Aelle (Malla>Ella). In line with Anglo-Saxon naming patterns amongst kinsman such as Nunna and Ine, and taking account of campaigning brothers like Ceawlin and Cutha, there would appear to be some circumstantial evidence here to propose the idea that Aelle was Mealla’s elder bother. In which case, in terms of this hypothesis, it seems feasible that Mealla would have been one of the four alderman who landed near Selsey in 477, and that it was he who won the battle at Mount Cayburn. This radical conjecture to try and identify the fourth alderman who landed with Aelle in 477, since Cymen/Wlencing was not two individuals but Wlanca's son, provides a convenient example of how the quest for the lineage of South Saxon rulers has been pursued. The conjecture is also an example of how the Royal Legend of the South Saxons can be restructured. The entry for Maelle will be found below.
Thus, an attempt has been made to reconstruct hypothetically the regnal history of the South Saxons, starting at its genesis through to its demise at the hand of the Mercians in 772, and concluding with the period of the last South Saxon dukes. The endeavour has been to achieve this by using history as the framework for informed conjecture to establish a theoretical genealogy. The main reference material which was employed to assist this process is listed in the bibliography at the end of the article. Further, as has been clarified below, it would seem reasonable to believe that the kingdom of the South Saxons became extinct under the military power of Wessex, during the late sixth century, and not that the South Saxon kingdom was lost to the Britons in the decades that followed the decisive British victory over Aelle, and his ally the Kentian Aesc, at Mount Badon in 493 (the uncertaun date given by Bede). Nevertheless, the defeat of Aelle’s Saxons halted any advance they might have intended to make for westward settlement and greater tribal power.




[SSEAXE] SECTION I, THE AELLEAN WARLORDSHIP FOLLOWED BY THE CISSAN KINGDOM OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, COVERING THE PERIOD FROM BEFORE 499 UP TILL 567.


[SSEAXE] PART ONE, THE WARLORDSHIP 477-514.

?ALDERMAN HAEGEL, ALDERMAN WLANCA, AELLE THE BRETWALDA, AND THE ALDERMEN MEALLA AND CYMEN WLENCING.


Except for Haegel (see the first entry) and Cuthwine (also see his entry), the evidence for the existence of the nobiliy, whose entries are to be found in this section, comes from the Royal Legend of the South Saxons, fragments of which have survived in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and in the writing of Roger of Wendover, the latter from the fourteenth century. The memory of Wincheling the son of Cissa, that is Wine Cissing, survived in Winchelsea until the late nineteenth century.

?HAEGEL WARLORD OF THE HAEGELINGS and born in the ?early 420's. In terms of aural and written history the name of Aelle's father is not known. Nevertheless, Hayling Island, which has definitely been associated with Aelle, appears to be named after Haegel. The form 'haegel' may give an old genitive stem for Aelle, since the 'g' here is to be pronounced as 'y', but the writer now believes that 'haegel' is more likely to represent a separate name, especially in the context of Hayling Island. We may well have here the name of the nobleman who fathered both Aelle and Maella, but with no records available can anything theoretical be said about him? It would seem that the only way is to look at the personality of Aelle. To the writer this alderman comes across as somewhat of a risk-taker. He decided to launch a campaign in Rhegin when the Arturo-British regime had consolidated with considerable armed strength, attested by archaeology and reflected in the twelve legendary battles of King Arthur, and later marched his Saxon warriors into the Arturo-British heartland with disasterous results. Would Aelle's father have been a similar type of character? An independant minded royal warrior, perhaps the younger son of a second or third generation tribal king claiming descent from Woden, with an ability to lead, might have decided to gather some adventurous young warriors around him, as their leader and founding warlord. They would then have formed, together with their families, the nucleus of a new people bearing the name of the founder. On the presumption that Haegel was just such a man, then he might have settled his people in the Rhine delta land on borders of northern Gaul around the mid 440's. From this location he and his warriors could easily have raided the Saxon Shore of Britain to gain adventure and booty. However, if he was the royal father of Aelle and, as argued here, of Maella, no mention is made of him in any form of history. It has to be contended, therefore, that his death occured before Aelle and his fellow aldermen crossed the Channel. Perhaps he died at sometime around 475. In terms of the supposition in this entry, Haegel must have been close to Wlanca, but that alone would not explain the high status of Wlanca's son Cymen Wlencing, who is recorded as being two of Aelle's sons! Cymen must have been a near blood relative to Aelle but not his equal. If Aelle can be argued to have had a brother who was Mealla, then the answer to the dilema here has already been proposed, namely that a sister to Wlanca gave birth to Aelle and his siblings. It remains to contend that this lady had her children by a certain King Haegel of the Heagelings.


ALDERMAN WLANCA, born in the ?late 420’s. The name of his father is not known. A Saxon chieftain who fathered the alderman known eventually as Cymen Wlencing. The assumption here is that Wlanca was the consanguinal maternal uncle of the royal brothers Aelle and Mealla, and that he was the eldest of the four alderman who landed near Selsey in 477. Bringing with him the experience of his years, he would have made an invaluable member of an Aellean warmoot, although of lower hierarchical standing than his nephews. He probably founded his settlement at Lancing in the same year. This Wlencing chieftaincy was inherited eventually by his son Cymen.

AELLE OF SUSSEX -)||(- WARLORD OF THE SOUTH SAXONS AND BRETWALDA. Born in the ?early 450’s. Maybe the grandson of a Saxon king, claiming patrilineal descent from the god Woden, a younger son of whom might have been called Haegel and after whom Aelle's tribe had taken its name. Aelle, perhaps soon after he had become the leader of his people on his father's death, sailed with three keel-loads of aristocratic warriors from the Rhine delta land to Britain. He and his senior aldermen might have made a first landing as settlers on Hayling Island around 475. It is contended in this hypothesis that these noblemen were Wlanca, Mealla and Cymen, and were Aelle's blood relatives. The settlement of this offshore territory could have been with compliance of the Britons, who wished to avoid the local Jutes causing any disturbance in support of newly arrived Saxons. Archaeological evidence suggests that earlier Saxon raiders had been allowed to settle, maybe as mercenaries serving under the command of a British lord or prince*, in the coastal area between the Ouse and the Cuckmere. In this stretch of land there was an absence of Roman colonisation. It seems that the new settlers who occupied this eastern colony did so before the influx of the Adventus around 449. They could easily have assisted Aelle when he and his people were first estabishing themselves on Hayling Island. When Aelle and his warriors had secured their statelet on Hayling island, the senior ranking chieftains, Wlanca, Mealla and Cymen perhaps began to give their counsel as his warmoot and it was probably these aldermen who landed with Aelle near Selsey in 477. The date given here by Bede may well be certain since it can be identified with the death of the great Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, the news of which was likely have infiltrated to most Barbarians, including the Saxons and Jutes, if for no other reason than via trade. It is feasible that the time and place of Aelle's invasion of Selsey Bill was unexpected by the Britons who might otherwise have put a military force in the locality. From his dominant and most trusted warriors, Aelle was likely to have made new chieftains, who were to take charge of both the territories gained from the Britons and those areas already settled, as their own independant aldermanries. Eventually, enough of the coastal strip had been taken into a league of chieftaindoms to enable Aelle and Cissa to move forward and destroy the fort at Anderida (probably called Pensafle Coed, MWO, by British speakers, Nennius gave Pensavelcoit) in 491**. The Roman fort at Pevensey could easily have been attacked from the sea. There must have been the occasional setback, most notably the indecisive battle of Mearcred’s Burn in 485. In the writer's view, this engagement probably took place where the road from Roman Chichester, Noviomagus Regnorum, to Clausum crossed the Purr. Success here might have enabled the South Saxons to capture Roman Porchester, thus securing their rear to the west as they settled the former Rhegin coast towards Pevensey. No doubt the early settled Hampshire Jutes would have assisted such a Saxon cause had the latter been victorious. Perhaps Aelle's abortive attempt to push westwards in 485 was instigated by the abandonment of Noviomagus Reginorum by its inhabitants, because the Saxon invaders in the area had become a military threat. On this presumption, the Britons must have failed to push the Saxons back into Selsey Bill and in consequence the Purr was probably adopted as the border by parley between the two sides. An agreement of this kind would have tended to isolate the Britons still in possession of Anderida.
Although there is no reference in aural history or documentary evidence, it is possible that Aelle made his eldest son, Cissa, his co-warlord of the South Saxons after the destruction of Roman Pevensey (see the entry for Cissa below). Not only was Aelle the warlord amongst the South Saxons, but it is recorded that he was also recognised as the first Bretwalda (Broadleader), a position he apparently continued to hold till his death, in spite of his decisive defeat by the Britons at Mount Badon in 493***. A word needs to be said concerning this battle at this point. Having secured his warlord status, Aelle appears to have planned a military thrust westwards to cut through Romano-British territory to the Bristol Channel. Disasterously for the Bretwalda and his ally, King Aesc of Kent, their warriors were cut down and the flower of South Saxon manhood might well have been lost. It is likely that Aelle's military leadership would have been accepted by all Jutes and Saxons settled south of the Thames, and although probably bereft of experienced fighting men in the years following Mount Badon, it seems feasible to argue that he would have been involved in the renewed attacks against the Britons, west of Sussex, instigated by the Gewissa and their allies, including the Jutes.
Plausably, during his later years, Aelle would also have concentrated much of his energy in giving his support to the developing settlements of the South Saxon chieftains. At the same time, he mght well have ensured that his leadership passed to the descendants of his close kindred, by extending the power centres of the Aelling, Mealling and Wlencing dynasties across both the recently conquered territory and the areas of earlier Saxon settlement which had a longer established and heavier population. It is worth considering the idea that within a year his defeat of Mount Badon, Aelle might have given Cissa the deserted Noviomagus Reginorum as land on which to build his own co-warlord's vil, with the support of appointed alderman, and that it was at this time the place was renamed Cissan Ceaster (today's Chichester) as the centre of his aldermanry. If Aelle's other two sons were considerably younger than Cissa, then they might have reached their maturity berore the turn of the sixth century and perhaps around the turn of the sixth century Aelle might have supported them, with appointed aldermen, in founding settlements at East chiltington and Chiddingly. The possible significance of these place names is dealt with in Section 3. As explored in the discussion below, a policy of this kind might have given rise to the Sussex Rapes, it would have certainly established a strong policy of shared power across the territory. Aelle supposedly died in 514 and from the aspect of the historical reconstruction in the Quest this date would seem quite feasible. According to tradition, he left the leadership of the South Saxons to his eldest son, Cissa. As has been stated, according to the same tradition the first Bretwalda had three sons, but why were the names of the younger two forgotten? Maybe they could have been overshadowed by Cissa, whose name might have borne a resemblance to those of his brothers and, as already suggested, they might also have been much younger than Cissa and less prominent at their father's court. It was, perhaps, under such circumstances that these younger siblings were later confused with the founding fathers, who landed near Selsey in the year of Cissa's birth. It is improbable that Aelle was ever King of the South Saxons, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles claim, since on the mainland each settlement was likely to have been an independent chieftaincy in a coastal league with the warlord. Nevertheless, a royal lineage would have helped him to assert his authority over the domain of the warlordship.

*Evidently the obsolete Welsh 'MAEL' was the title actually used by a British lord or prince. This is confirmed by the rendering of the names Conin Mael and Ffaraon Mael as Coinmagil and Farinmagil in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. 'BRENIN' was and continues to be the word for a king.

**The Warlord of the South Saxons and his warmoot in 491 after the capture of the Roman fort at Pevensey, assuming that Wlanca had already died, was perhaps as follows: Aelle ?Haegelling, Mealla ?Haegelling, contended here to have been Aelle's brother, Cymen Wlencing and Cissa Aelling. If these were the aldermen who landed on mainland Rhegin in 477, Cissa it would seem at his mother's breast, thenit is these names that are probably behind the record of Aelle and his sons in later annals. If this was so, clearly the legend or aural history that reached Bede at Yarrow around 700 was in a corrupted form even if he received it in writing.

***Although Bede's date for this battle, 493, is considered uncertain, the writer believes that the arguments against it are equally unconvincing.


MEALLA, ?ROYAL ALDERMAN, born in the ?late 450’s. Presumed here to have been a royal alderman and Aelle’s younger brother. As such, he might also have been the leading warrior in his warlord brother’s retinue until Cissa Aelling reached his majority at the age of fourteen. If Mealla was Aelle's brother, he would probably have landed with Aelle near Selsey in 477, and is likely to have campaigned with his brother during the nascent years of Sussex. He would have been an obvious candidate for an Aellean warmoot. In 491, Aelle having destroyed the Roman fort of Pevensey, it could have been Mealla who defeated the local Britons making their last stand on Mount Cayburn (Old Welsh, Caerbryn). Perhaps it was after this British defeat, that Mealla founded his own settlement, not far from the Cayburn battle site, at South Malling. This theoretical version of events seems to fit the contemporary circumstances.

ALDERMAN CYMEN WLENCING*, born in the early 450’s? Wlanca’s son and heir, and taken here as the maternal first cousin of the royal brothers Aelle and Mealla, and landing with them near Selsey in 477, at a place which became known as Cymen’s Shore, but lost to the sea many generations later. The site is now refered to as The Owers. On Wlanca’s death, Cymen would have inherited his father’s settlement at Lancing. Cymen then held two aldermanries, and it appears that he was referred to as Cymen Wlencing, probably because of his separated estates. He, too, would have been an ideal member of an Aellean warmoot.

* pronounced 'Wlenching'.


[SSEAXE] PART TWO, THE CISSAN KINGDOM 514-567.

'Ic thas leode heold fiftig wintras..'
(I have ruled this people for fifty winters..) Beowulf, as he lay dying from a poisoned wound inflicted by the dragon.


[SSEAXE] KING CISSA, AND THE ALDERMEN WINE CISSING AND CUTHWINE.

KING CISSA* OF SUSSEX, THE FORMER CO-WARLORD AND LEGENDARY RULER OF THE SOUTH SAXONS -)||(- The assertion here is that Cissa did not die in 590, as recorded by Roger of Wendover, but that he died at the age of 90. The rest of the timescale of Cissa's life, as given by Roger, has been modified accordingly. Cissa was perhaps born at his father's vil on Hayling Island in 477 and died in 567. He was the eldest of Aelle’s three sons, the names of the other two being soon forgotten. It is contended here that when Cissa reached his majority, at the age of fourteen in 491, he was elevated by his father to be the co-warlord and senior member of warlord's warmoot, perhaps to celebrate the fall of Roman Pevensey and to confirm his father's power. If this contention is correct, then Cissa was indeed a ruler for seventy six years as inferred by Roger. On Aelle’s death in 514, Cissa would have inherited perhaps not his father's kingship but rather, as contended in this hypothesis, his father's warlordship as his own. Realising that the initiatives of military leadership had by now passed to Cerdic Elsing, Cissa would have been anxious to establish a new role for himself as unitary King of the South Saxons. Presumably he was able to use the influence of royal ancestry and the support of his father's warmoot of nearest kinsmen to found the new kingdom. This conjectured aristocratic moot of close relatives to Aelle and his sons, assuming its existence, could have become the Witanegemot of the South Saxons and it is also contended that this institution might have been guaranteed heredirary membership, in return for their loyal commitment to Cissa's kingship and their continuing support of the new royal authority over other powerful aldermen. Under such circumstances, it could be argued that there would have been a shared regnality with the the King at its pinnacle, then the members of his witan, with the other chieftains on bottom tier. Cissa was to secure his influence in the east by making his son his co-ruler about 521 and establishing him at Wines Cesel-leah about 523. The idea of an hereditary or agnatic witan is discussed at further length in Section 3. The new king made his royal centre at Cissan Ceaster, thus moving the main focus of power in Sussex from Hayling Island to the better placed Chichester. Feasibly, Cissa was already the alderman here, although no archaeological evidence from this period has yet been found. Concluding on the timescale refered to above, Cissa reigned from 514-567, and like Claudia Crysis of Roman Lincoln, he lived to be a nonagenerian. Rectifying Roger of Wendover's uncontextual date of 586, four years before Cissa's supposed death in 590 to a possible historical event, Wine (see the entry below), his son and heir, might have already predeceased his father by 563. Returning to the tradition that Highdown Hill became a royal burying ground, it is possible that the King's younger brothers, and later Cissa himself, were buried there with pagan ceremony. This would seem to imply that by 540 the centre of regnal authority at Chichester was securely established in a well managed kingdom with centres of royal power at Cissan Ceaster, Wlencing, Ciltan Tun, Mealling, Ciddan Leah and Wines Cesel-leah. As mentioned above, we shall return to the possible significance of Ciltan Tun and Ciddan-leah in the third section below. However, follwing the death of Wine, and with Cissa in his dotage, the political situation in Sussex might have deteriorated, causing the King to depend on the assistance of Ceawlin. After Cissa’s death, the kingdom of the South Saxons is said to have devolved on Ceawlin, by then king of the West Saxons, who perhaps had married a granddaughter of Cissa (for this speculation, see the entry for Wine Cissing below). However, a separate kingdom of the South Saxons became irrelevant, in a warrior age, when armed men from Sussex could avenge the defeat of their forefathers at Mount Baden by fighting for Ceawlin, King of their fellow Saxons and Second Bretwalda, as he advanced against the self governing domains of the now disunited Britons.

*Note: Pronounced as 'Chissa'.


THE CISSBURY RINGS. Before leaving this discussion on King Cissa, perhaps a word needs to be said about Cissbury and its legendary connection to the king. Apparently, there is no certain archaeological evidence of any early Saxon re-use of the Iron Age hillfort which might have stood abandoned from about the time of the Claudian Invasion. The writer believes there was probably a Romano-British refurbishment of Cissbury to make the hillfort a fortified look-out for and refuge from Saxon raiders, which was later abandoned, around 480, when chieftains like Wasa of Washington were begining to settle the north side of the Downs (The English term is cognate with the Welsh, twyni). If this fortified hill had been named after Cissa, one might have expected the modern name to be Chissbury (Cissa's bury or brae). Scholars have suggested a derivation from the Celtic SIDH meaning the faerie folk, but this seems unconvincing for a once occupied fortress, unless connected to the ghosts of previous inhabitants reinterpreted as faeries. Certainly Cissbury can claim an elfin myth. Nevertheless, the writer would suggest a Brythonic derivation along the lines of BRE SEISYLL or Brae of Seisyll, perhaps the name of a once powerful Iron Age chieftain whose people lived there in a fortified tribal centre, which stood on the site of earlier Neolithic flint mines. However, all this does not necessarily rule out a connection with Cissa, together perhaps with Aelle, which might have been remembered in aural history. By the late fifth century the Britons had regained their military confidence and would have been capable of making a destructive assault on South Saxon lands from their Arturo-Britsh heartland, either by using the road from Cavella Atrebatum to Cissan Ceaster or by sea to attack the coast. A British nobleman, Riothamus*, is known to have taken an army across to Gaul and campaigned in 468-470. They might have planned to follow up their crushing victory over Cissa at Mount Badon by invading the nascent Sussex. Under these circumstances, the old hillfort would have made an invaluable garrison for Cissa and his father, from which mounted scouts, like Hrothgar's coastguard thane, could have operated to give warning of any signs of impending attack. On the other hand, considering that contemporary historians believe the Anglo-Saxon and Jutish settlers were facilitated by an element of pro-Germanican British compliance, it is not impossible that Cissa had been wedded to a British noblewoman. A British person of such standing could have acquainted the Saxon storytellers of a surviving British legend cocerning Cissbury, which was haunting enough to be told, of an evening, in Cissa's meadhall. However, for the Cissbury Rings to have somehow become dedicated by Sussex people to the memory of Cissa, with whom the destiny of their ancestors was so closely associated for seventy six years, seems entirely appropriate.

*The writer has recently revised his thinking on the origin of the name Riothamus. A current Welsh form would be Rhiaidd Amws meaning 'royal steed'. Compare the Jutish Hengist and Horsa.


ROYAL ALDERMAN WINE CISSING* (wrongly, Wincheling), born in the ?late 500’s. Following remembered tradition he died, maybe, about 563, thus predeceasing his father King Cissa by four years. Tradition suggests that he was his father's co-ruler. This being taken as correct, then Wine was probably elevated when he came of age around 521. Presumably, he was given charge of the East March of Sussex where he founded the earliest settlement at Winchelsea, perhaps about 523 with the aid of aldermen appointed by his father, calling it Wines Cesel-leah. This became the Gwent-chesel-ey of the later mediaeval period and finally lost to the sea in the great storm of 1287. Wine probably established his vil and stronghold at Winchelsea from where, as his father’s heir (?or Atheling) he would have represented royal authority on the East March of the kingdom, near the Jutish settlement of Hastings. Here, where the sea filled a large firth in the sixth century, he must have been addressed as Wine Cissing, probably owing to his royal status and his guardianship, for the King, of the Eastern Rother estuary. This hypothesis speculates that Wine had a daughter, maybe his eldest surviving child and heiress, who was wedded to Ceawlin of Wessex (see the entry for Cuthwine below), perhaps sometime in the mid 550’s, and that this union was to prove extinctive to the survival of a South Saxon kingdom. Most importantly, this would explain why the Cissan kingdom devolved, according to Roger, on the powerful Ceawlin when king Cissa died. No doubt in the frailty his of old age, Cissa had come to rely increasingly on Ceawlin. Apparently, there was no confrontation from the warrior kindred of Wine to challenge the grasp of the West Saxon ruler on Cissa's death.. It is true that Ceawlin might have already been recognised as the second Bretwalda by 567, but that did not necessarily give him the right to subsume Sussex.

*Note : Wine Cissing should be pronounced like ‘winna chissing’, which thus gave rise to the corrupted form Wincheling as the founder of Winchelsea.


CUTHWINE, ROYAL ALDERMAN, born ?early 560's, he is known to have been the eldest son of Ceawlin king of the West Saxons and second Bretwalda. This hypothesis speculates that Cuthwine's mother was the ?eldest daughter and heiress of Wine Cissing (see the entry for Wine Cissing above), and that this successful warrior was destined to inherit his father’s authority over both West and South Saxons. It is recorded that Cuthwine went into battle with his father in 577, very likely when he had reached manhood aged fourteen. This was the campaign which led to the Saxon victory over the Britons at Dyrham. It is also speculated that the choice of giving him an old dynastic name, Cuthwine, would have reflected the ties of Ceawlin’s son to both peoples. Cutha is known to have been Cuthwine’s paternal uncle, and in terms of this hypothesis, Wine of Sussex was his maternal grandfather. However, as history records, King Ceawlin was deposed by his nephews, Ceol and Ceolwulf, and power in Wessex shifted to the descendants of King Ceol. This latter relationship follows the traditional royal line of descent. If, indeed, Cuthwine was King Cissa's great grandson and he lived to see the endemic strife between Sussex and Wessex during the reign of Ceolwulf (597- 611), it seems feasible that he would have lent his support to the South Saxon insurgency. Cuthwine's family had been deprived of power and this would have been a warrior's opportunity to fight back. The date 607, given as the year of insurrection in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, is probably rhetoric and based on forty rhetorical years from the death of King Cissa, taken here to have been in 567. According to the traditional royal line of succession already mentioned, Cuthwine’s youngest son was Cuthwulf, from whom, in line with the conjectural Dynasty of Ecgwald Cuthwulfing discussed below, many later kings of the South Saxons were descended.




[SSEAXE] SECTION II. THE CONJECTURED DYNASTY OF ECGWALD (?CUTHWULFING), WITH NOTHGYTH, NOTHHELM, OSRIC, OSA, OSMUND, OSWALD, AELFWALD AND OSLAC. COVERING THE PERIOD 686-CIRCA796.

The evidence of charter witness lists vouches for the existence of all the noblemen who are given entries in this section. There are fifteen genuine South Saxon charters that have survived from the period covered by the Nothgyth Quest, but there must have been a host more, now lost, which would have given further confirmation of the names of rulers who granted them.


THE UNDER-KING ECGWALD, born in the ?late 620’s. There is radical genealogical conjecture in this entry. To begin with, it is speculated that he was the son of Cuthwulf and younger brother of Ceowald. All the descendants of Cuthwine, who fathered the three brothers, Cadda, Cynebald and Cuthwulf, would have had a blood claim on the kingdom of the South Saxons, including Ecgwald, in terms of the speculative history given above. Charter evidence tells us that after his conquest of Sussex in 686, Caedwalla, who was the grandson of Cadda and King of the West Saxons, appointed Ecgwald to be his under-king in Sussex. This choice might have been because Ecgwald was based in Sussex, or, to extend the elements of conjecture in this quest, because of the union between Nothhelm, assumed here to have been Ecgwald’s son, and Aethelthryth, assumed here to have been the daughter of King Aethelwalh and Queen Eafe of the South Saxons. This marriage could have taken place around 684-85 (see the entry for Nothhelm below). Ecgwald probably remained Caedwalla's under-king in Sussex till the latter's abdication in 688, and perhaps one of his last official acts was to witness the charter granted by King Nothhelm to his sister, Nothgyth, in the next reign (see her entry below).
After Caedwalla had conquered the South Saxons with such brutality, did his under-king try to intercess on their behalf? Indeed, who could the South Saxon people have found to assuage their humiliation and restore some pride? In answer to this question, maybe one can return to the concept of an agnatic witan in Sussex, and extend hypothesis a little further, the conjecture being that a) by the late seventh century the storytellers and the South Saxon populace could have come to regard all the members of an agnatic witan as the direct descendants of Aelle. That b), if this was the case, then after the West Saxon conquest the populace would have looked to such nobility as their natural leaders, from whom they might find support and some protection. That c), these illiterate noblemen would have believed the aural history of their mutual Aellean ancestry themselves and d) that during the turbulent years of Ecgwald's stewardship, they might have used such a story as propoganda against the West Saxon occupation. Bede implies that the conquered were reduced to a state of slavery. In the event, propoganda of the kind suggested above might have given impetus to the appointment of Ine's kinsman, Nothhelm, as the dominant King of the South Saxons in 688*, especially if Nothhelm had been the son of Ecgwald, an under-king who perhaps tried to be the intercessor for an oppressed people. These assumptions could also help to explain the Sussex invasion story found in Bede and links up with the ideas proposed in the second footnote to Aelle's entry, concerning the warlord's supposed sons, Cymen, Wlencing and Cissa, whom Bede records as having landed on Cymen's Shore in 477.

*The presumed date of Nothhelm's accession in th Nothgyth Quest.



[SSEAXE] THE LADY NOTHGYTH AND KING NOTHHELM/NUNNA.

THE LADY NOTHGYTH, born ?circa 655. The noblewoman after whom this hypothesis has been named. Known to have been the sister of Nothhelm, in whose affections* she was apparently closely held. It is argued here that she would have been older than her brother and that both siblings were the offspring of Ecgwald, she being perhaps the eldest surviving child. In 692 she received a land grant from her brother King Nothhelm. Later she became a patron of the young church in Sussex, which had been established by Bishop Wilfrid’s conversion of the South Saxons from their pagan gods, during the years 681-686. Wilfrid was the Bishop of York and later canonised. To support the founding of a monastry, he received thirty three hides at Lidsey, Aldingbourne, ?Westergate and Mundham from Nothgyth, the estate which had been granted to her previously by her brother. This pious lady also committed herself to be Wilfrid's nun and go on a pilgrimage, perhaps to Rome. No doubt an example needed to be set by the upper echelons of society in Sussex. It was in the late eighth century that St Cuthman, the shepherd preacher, settled in Steyning to convert the South Saxons. Clearly, there was still a mission to be achieved.

* Unusually, the royal beneficiary was addressed in the second person, the Latin 'tibi', which was not the norm in the South Saxon charters that have survived.'


KING NOTHHELM OF SUSSEX -)||(- Born in the ?late 650's. All the genealogy in this entry is carefully considered but radical conjecture, including the speculation of Nothhelm's marriage to Aethelthryth. It is worth the mention that Nothhelm was also called Nunna, a more intimate name by which he would probably have been known by his kinsfolk and those aldermen who were in attendance at his court. Nothhelm's kinsman, Ine, who on the time scale of the Nothgyth Quest would have been younger, was very likely so named to reflect the hypocoristic form 'Nunna'. It is contended here that he was younger than the Lady Nothgyth and that they were both children of the under-king Ecgwald, and that Nothhelm took Aethelthryth of Sussex, the daughter of King Aethelwalh and Queen Eafe, as his wife in about 684-85. To support the speculation of Nothhelm's marriage to Aethelthryth and the conjecture on her lineage, it can argued that the union would have been at the root of a royal race comprising two dynasties in Sussex, a well known enigma, causing that both to have been related to the Hwiccean royal house. Such a union could also have saved the lives of Aethelwalh’s widowed queen and his probable children when Caedwalla crushed the South Saxons after the death of Berhthun, in 686. Caedwalla's actions, as recorded by Bede, prove that he was not a man of compromise. In the entries for Watt, Berhthun and Andhun and Bryni, to be found in Section 4, it is conjectured that they were all the illegitimate sons of Aethelwalh, making them Aethelthryth's half brothers. Watt and Bryni certainly survived. Further mention of the supposition on Nothhelm's union with Aethelthryth is made in her entry, also in Section 4. It would seem that Nothhelm was appointed by Ine, by this time king of the West Saxons, to be the dominant king of the South Saxons in 688. Watt, considered here to have been another of Aethelthryth’s half brothers, was probably installed in the same year. As the co-ruling king he witnessed Nothhelm's early charters. It seems likely that when King Watt died, perhaps around 700, Aethelstan, who is considered here to have been Queen Aethelthryth's full brother, became Nothhelm’s second co-ruler. According to the chroniclers, Nothhelm and his kinsman, King Ine, were allied against King Geraint of Dumnonia in the campaign of 710. The British king was defeated by the combined forces of the South and West Saxons and killed in action. Drawing this entry to a close, it is argued here that Nothhelm died in 722, without naming his successor, since that decision was in the hands of king Ine who continued to exercise supremacy over the South Saxons. It is also conjectured that the West Saxon ruler appointed Aethelberht (a prince known to have been a South Saxon king later in the eighth century), to succeed Nothhelm, and that the said Aethlberht was the eldest of Aethelstan's two sons, the other being the dissident Ealdberht. Ealdberht's rebellion in 722 is discussed in his entry which can be found in Section 4. In accordance with the wish expressed in his last extant charter, Nothhelm was probably buried in the minster at Selsey. It might have acted as a royal burial-church for all Christian kings who ruled in Sussex, and perhaps even Aethelwalh's remains were intered there with those of the his eldest son.


[SSEAXE] ALDERMAN OSRIC AND BISHOP OSA/OSWALD.

OSRIC, ROYAL ALDERMAN, born in the ?late 680’s. Surmised here to have been the eldest son of King Nothhelm. Following the speculation given above, Osric's mother would have been Aethelthryth of Sussex, to whom his father was married in about 685. In all probability, Osric was introduced to the duties expected of a royal alderman while still in his teenage years, following the death of the co-ruling King Watt, when he was required to witness one of the charters* granted by Nothhelm. Subsequently, he might have witnessed several more charters long since lost to history. In terms of this hypothesis, the deceased Watt would have been Osric's uncle. However, it appears that this prince was never elevated to kingship by Ine, who had kept his supremacy over the Saxons of Sussex. Perhaps Osric was offered a crown, but he had no inclination to take on the challenges of kingship. It can probably be assumed, in the context of the genealogical theory developed here, that Osric had four sons, Osmund, Oswald, Aelfwald and Oslac, three of whom were destined to become South Saxon kings.

* In its first stage this charter granted land to Berhfrith in order that he could build a minster, where prayers would be said for King Nothhhelm. The earliest acceptable date for this clause is 705, which the writer believes to be the most likely. It was probably in this year that the see of Selsey was established, with Eadberht, Abbot of Selsy, appointed as the first bishop.

OSA/OSWALD, BISHOP OF SELSEY. According to S.E.Kelly, Osa might have been a relative of Osric and Osmund. The speculation here is that he was born ?circa 705 and that he was the youngest child of King Nothhelm and Queen Aethelthryth, and destined from his earliest years for a priestly career. It is known that in the course of time he became the fifth bishop of Selsey, the diocese of the South Saxons, and held office from before 765 to before 780. After the Mercian conquest of Sussex in 772, Bishop Osa was granted an estate at Bexhill by King Offa, on the 15th of August in the same year. The charter was witnessed, amongst others, by aldermen assumed here to have been his consanguinal nephews: Osmund the former dominant king, Oswald the first Duke of the South Saxons under King Offa, and the ex-kings Aelfwald and Oslac.


[SSEAXE] KING OSMUND, ALDERMAN OSWALD, KING AELFWALD AND KING OSLAC, THE LAST THREE BECOMING DUKES OF THE SOUTH SAXONS.

KING OSMUND OF SUSSEX (Deposed) -)||(- Born in the ?early 710’s. Conjectured in this entry as the eldest of Osric’s four sons. It is also speculated that during the last years of Aethelberht’s reign as unitary king of the South Saxons, Osmund made moves to regain power for his grandfather’s dynasty, but that his main obstacle was the high royal standing of Prince Ealdwulf, King Aethelberht’s heir (see the fourth section of this hypothesis). Following this theory, by Aethelberht’s death, very likely in 758, Osmund would have been in a strong enough position to outrival the much younger, Ealdwulf. A word ought to be said, in passing, concerning 758. In this year, according to the compiler of the Worcester Chronicle, Archbishop Cuthberht died, Swithred was King of the East Saxons, and Osmund King of the South Saxons. It is known that Cuthberht died in 760, but Swithred's successor, Sigeric, did become king in Essex at sometime during 758. Therefore it would seem that the compiler's record of kingship in this year is comparatively safe. In the supposed genealogy here, Ealdwulf would have been his second cousin. Osmund was then able to impose himself as the dominant king of the South Saxons. Nevertheless, going by the charter evidence which remains, it appears that Osmund needed the support of Aelfwald and Oslac, taken as his two youngest brothers in this quest, as co-ruling kings to contain the authority of Ealdwulf. Even so, Osmund must have been obliged to recognise Ealdwulf as the senior co-ruler. Again, this assertion can be gleaned from the witness lists of contemporary charters. The instability of the Osmundian regime of plural kingship enabled Offa King of the Mercians to conquer the South Saxons in 772, after which he deposed all the ruling Cerdicingas* of Sussex and demoted them from their previous royal status, as is clear from surviving charters.

* The Cerdicingas were the members of the royal dynasty founded by Cerdic, the first West Saxon king. As is contended here, it was this royal race that supplied kings to the South Saxons.


OSWALD, DUKE OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, born ?circa 715. He is presumed here to have been the second son of Osric and a younger brother of King Osmund. He did not participate in Osmund’s regime, probably because he would not support the new plural kingship that his brother had been determined to set in place. After King Offa’s conquest of Sussex, early in 772, as the witness list of the charter granted by Offa to Bishop Osa on 15/08/772 tells us, it appears that Oswald was appointed as the Mercian king's first Duke of the South Saxons. Following the dynastic reconstruction of a house of Ecgwald as suggested here, a family gathering amongst the witnesses to this Bexhill land grant, already discussed in the entry for Osa/Oswald, might have been to mark the occasion of the younger Oswald's appointment to stewardship. He might have died in 780 (See the entry for Oslac below).

KING AELFWALD (Deposed), born in the ?early 720’s. It is surmised here that he was the third son of Osric and second ranking co-ruling king during Osmund’s reign (on charter evidence). He was deposed by Offa in 772 , and never chosen subsequently to hold ducal office. Perhaps he might have declined such an appointment by a Mercian ruler.

OSLAC, KING (Deposed) AND DUKE OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, born ?irca 725. It is surmised here that he was the fourth son of Osric and the third ranking co-ruling king under Osmund (on charter evidence). He was deposed by Offa, who appointed him later as his second Duke of the South Saxons, probably after the death of Oswald. As with Oswald, the theory of the family gathering discussed below, if correct, might have been to mark the appointment of Oslac to his stewardship over the South Saxons, his brother Oswald having recently died. Oslac himself must have died before 786 since his successor, Ealdwulf, issued a charter in this year as King Offa's Duke of the South Saxons.

THE CHARTER OF OSLAC. Dated 780, and drawn up as a land grant to a certain St. Paul’s church. Oslac's grant was later confirmed by Offa, King of the Mercians, and his co-ruling son, King Ecgfrith, between 787 and 796. Please to note that the discussion in this entry concerns extended genealogical conjecture.

The only original South Saxon charter to have survived. It was granted by Oslac, the second Duke of the South Saxons. No permission was sought from King Offa for this land grant. The charter was drawn up during the period 776-785, when Kent had temporarily thrown off the Mercian yoke, thus giving Oslac a measure of ducal independence. At this time Surrey was held by Wessex and, without Kent, Offa had no direct overland access to Sussex. Now for the theoretical content of this entry. Besides a number of other alderman, it is contended here that this ducal document was witnessed by several of Oslac’s kinsmen. Aelfwald, his surviving elder brother, Ealdwulf, his second cousin, who was to succeed him as the next duke, and also his nephews Waermund (born late 730’s?), and Waerfrith (born early 740’s?), the sons of his eldest brother King Osmund. Finally there was Aethelmund, assumed here to have been Oslac’s grand-nephew, born in the early 760’s? and the son of Waermund. Notice the South Saxon naming pattern, from one generation to the next, Osmund, Waermund, Aethelmund, which is supportive of the contention here. Compare with Aethelwalh, Aethelstan, Aethelberht. It appears from his position towards the end of the witness list that Aethelmund’s conjectured former royal rank, he must have been born before the Mercian conquest of Sussex, was of no account when it came to the social precedence of his own generation in the 780‘s.




[SSEAXE] SECTION III. THE (CONJECTURED) RULE OF REGNAL SOUTH SAXON CHIEFTAINS, LED BY THEIR AGNATIC WITENAGEMOT, UNDER THE KINGS OF WESSEX*, AND INTRODUCING THE ALDERMEN CILTA AND CIDDA. COVERING THE PERIOD 567-645.

I will go out against the sun
Where the rolled scarp retires,
And the Long Man of Wilmington
Looks naked toward the shires. ~~ Rudyard Kipling


1) THE CHIEFTAINS.
When Cissa died in 567, the second Bretwalda, King Ceawlin of the West Saxons, whose heir, Cuthwine, is presumed here to have been the grandson of Wine, became overlord in Sussex. With the military victories of Ceawlin’s reign in an age of warriors, as he advanced against the Britons, the kingdom founded by Cissa became irrelevant. With its extinction, the influence of a native king at the pinnacle of shared regal power, as presumed above, would have disappeared being reduced to an upper tier of the Witanegemot and a lower tier the other chieftains. The highest ranking of these men, that is the Witanegemot as proposed above, would have been the patrilinear descendants of early royalty and close kinsmen of the warlord Aelle. The chieftains of this conjectured gathering would have held their settlements, or aldermanries, as centres of ultimate regnal authority, each of them regarding himself as a virtual king over the other chieftains in his area of influence. It has already been argued that in return for continuing support, Cissa might have recognised the hereditary status of such an institution. It also seems feasible to surmise that the the ?Kings of the Hastings Jutes would also have been allowed membership of an institution of this kind, as a guarantee of peaceful co-existance. If this wasthe regime in Sussex then, presumably, their power bases would have been Chichester, Lancing, South Malling, Hastings and Winchelsea, spread out in relation to the natural divisions of Sussex (later the Rapes), formed by the five main rivers*. The extensive estuary of the Eastern Rother, at this time, has already been mentioned. Together with these powerful aldermanries, there were, maybe, two other centres of regnality, East Chiltington and Chiddingly, founded respectively by Cilta and Cidda (both once common names). This is argued for two interconnected reasons. Firstly, in terms of a possible alignment of power centres, held by Aelle's younger sons and their heirs, in the strategic stretch af land between the Adur and Winchelsea. On the evidence of known pagan graves, this area would have included the most populated part of South Saxon territory in the fifth and sixth centuries. Secondly, we may have the evidence in these two patronymic place names of Cissa's purported brothers because, if taken together with Cissa, they reveal a very recognisable Anglo-Saxon pattern of naming siblings. If this contention was indeed the case, then Aelle's sons were Cissa, Cilta and Cidda. Further, if these junior brothers of Cissa were much younger than him, as suggested in the entry for Aelle, then the settlements of East Chiltington and Chiddingly might have been established in the opening years of the sixth century, as already suggested, after these youths had become of age.
The theory is that the most powerful of such blue-blooded chieftains could have formed a shared military leadership that replaced the guardianship of a South Saxon king, and that under this leadership (probably supported by Cuthwine, in line with the presumption that he was the grandson of Wine) the South Saxons were in endemic revolt against their third overlord, King Ceowulf. The belligerent attitude of this prince was noted by the chroniclers. It is presumed here that the Saxon chieftains in Sussex would normally have shown loyalty to an overlord to whom they could look for the protection of their estates and status, and that when Cynegils became King of the West Saxons, in 611, peace was restored. Cenwalh, their last overlord, divorced his Queen in 645. It is recorded that she was the sister of Penda, King of the Mercians, and that in revenge her brother invaded Wessex and Cenwalh fled to the court of King Anna, in East Anglia. The conjectural input modifying known history, at this point, is that Penda then appointed Aethelwalh as unitary king of the South Saxons. Such an action would have given the Mercians an ally on the English Channel coast, re-established a South Saxon monarchy after seventy-eight years and deprived Cenwalh of his status as overlord in Sussex, while giving his ?brother Aethelwalh his own kingdom. This family relationship is discussed in Aethelwalh's entry below, where the reader will also note that King Aethelwalh married a Christian (the writer believes in 661), and yet it was another fourteen years before the King himself accepted baptism and another six years after that before the South Saxons began to be converted, in spite of the Irish mission at Bosham and the influence of the king's wife. Clearly, it took twenty years to persuade the powerful South Saxon chieftains to abandon their paganism.
It is also concluded that with the ending of the rule of regnal South Saxon chieftains under Wessex, the Sussex of Arthur’s Britain (477-645), passed into history. It is also conjectured that a new era of the Sussex of the Cerdicingas (645-c796) with the two branches of their royal family, descending from Ecgwald and Cynegils respectively, replaced the uncontested regime of the chieftains. It followed also that royal naming patterns in Sussex were to reflect the descent of both dynasties from Queen Eafe and their ties with the House of Hwicce (re: the entries for Ecgwald's dynasty above). It may be that such a policy was adopted to give the Cerdicingas of Sussex their own kingly identity amongst the South Saxon aldermen. However it is worth noting, with regard to the theoretical Rule of the Chieftains expounded in this section, that under such conditions the local rulers in the eastern reaches of Sussex might well have retained much of their authority. Maybe from their viewpoint, they would simply have exchanged an overlord who was King of the West Saxons for an overlord who was rather nearer home.

*With regard to the conjectured rule discussed in Section 3, a discredited king list for West Sussex, compiled during the eighth century in Wessex, ostensibly to underline continuing kingship, may well reflect the former regal power of a South Saxon chieftain.

*From east to west, with their likely British names given in brackets, these five rivers are: The Arun/Trent (MWO Trannon = fast flowing), the Adur/Bramber Water (MWO ?Dwyre = rising water of tide), the Ouse/from the Celtic for 'water' (MWO Gwy = Wye), the Cuckmere/Exe (MWO Wysg = Usk), and the 'Eastern' Rother/Limen (MWO ?Lli Mena = Mena's flood or sea).



2) THE (CONJECTURAL) AGNATIC WITENAGEMOT IN 567
as its membership* might have been in 567, on the death of King Cissa, given in the order of inherited rank:

WINE's eldest son, born ?late 530's, second Alderman of Cissan Ceaster, since the death Wine Cissing.
WINE's second son, born ?early 540's, second Alderman of Wines Cesel-leah, since the death of Wine in 563.
CILTA's eldest son, born ?late 530's, second Alderman of (East) Ciltan Tun by ?early 570's.
CIDDA's eldest son, born ?early 540's, second Alderman of Ciddan-Leah by circa 575.
MEALLA's grandson**, born ?early 510's, third Alderman of (East) Mealling by circa 545.
CYMEN WLENCING's great grandson, born ?circa 535, fourth Alderman of Wlencing by the ?late 560's.

*The presumed existance of an hereditary witan in Sussex gives rise to the question of Hastings. Would the Jutish Haestingas have supplied an agnatic member to represent their interests? As mentioned above, the answer might be that in order to involve the Jutish Haestingas as natural allies of the South Saxons, their ruler, who possibly regarded himself as a king, might well have been co-opted as an established member of this council. The opportunity to inaugurate such a custom could have been when Cissa established his son at Wines Cesel-leah, circa 523.

**What is revealed by this proposed list, drawn up strictly on the timescale of the Nothgyth Quest, is that the third Alderman of Mealling could have been by far the most senior and longest serving member of an agnatic witan in 567. He might also have been the dominant man, perhaps influenced by the heroic figure of his paternal grandfather, Mealla, if the latter was indeed the first bretwalda's brother. A circumstance of this nature could have given rise to considerable friction, particularly if the agnatic descendants of a high ranking brother to Aelle had regarded their claims as equal to those of the warlord's own direct male descendants.




[SSEAXE] SECTION IV. THE CONJECTURED DYNASTY OF AETHELWALH (?CYNEGILSING), WITH WATT, BERHTHUN AND ANDHUN, BRYNI, EAFE OF HWICCE, AETHELTHRYTH, AETHELSTAN, AETHELRED, EALDRED, EALDWULF AND AETHELWULF. COVERING THE PERIOD 688-C796.

There is the evidence of the chroniclers and/or the witness lists of South Saxon charters for the existence of all the nobility whose entries are to be found in this section.


KING AETHELWALH AND QUEEN EAFE.

KING AETHELWALCH OF SUSSEX -)||(- (Please note that his marriage to King Eanfrith’s daughter, Eafe of hwicce, is recorded history). Perhaps born in the early 620’s. the theory here is that Aethelwalh was the second eldest of the four surviving sons of Cynegils, king of the West Saxons. Further that he was appointed by a vengeful by Penda, king of the Mercians, as the unitary king of the South Saxons in 645 after Cenwalh had taken flight to East Anglia as a result of having put aside his queen, who was Penda's sister*. Thus the kingdom founded by Cissa in 514 was re-established in 645. To speculate further, it is contended that rather than take a concubine, Aethelwalch cohabited with a number of women, who were perhaps connected to royal estates, before and during the early years of his reign, by whom he had four illegitimate sons (see the entries immediately below). The names of these men do not appear to have been dynastic. In the context of this hypothesis, it was only later that he married Eafe of Hwicce*, the daughter of the Christian King Eanfrith (born early 640‘s?), by whom he had a son (born early 660’s?). It is also conjectured that Eafe gave him two other chldren, Aethelthryth (born circa 665?), and Aethelstan (born late 660’s?). In this hypothesis the daughter is assumed to have married King Nothhelm, as already discussed, and the son to have become Nothhelm's co-ruler (see Nothhelm's entry in Section 2). Aethelwalh's union wih Eafe almost certainly took place in 661. In this year, King Wulfhere of the Mercians had taken the Meonware and the Isle of Wight from Wessex and gained supremacy over the Kingdom of the South Saxons. It is entirely plausable that the pagan Aethelwalh was wedded to the Christian Eafe on the insistance of the Mercian ruler who was himself a devout follower of the new faith. Bede gave an account of her background. Eafe must have been many years younger than her husband, perhaps born in the early 630's. Like the Frankish princess, Queen Bertha of Kent, Eafe probably brought with her a Christian priest who might well have baptised her children by the pagan Aethelwalh. However, it is equally possible that the Irish mission at Bosham might have supplied Queen Eafe with the needs of her spiritual faith. Reading between the lines in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, it appears likely, following the wedding of the King and Queen of the South Saxons, that Wulfhere entrusted Aethelwalh with the care of the new Mercian provinces. This action would have set a precedent for King Offa in 772.
Recorded history tells us that in 675, in return for Aethelwalh having consented to be baptised, he gained from Wulfhere the Mercian territories of the Jutish Meonware and the Isle of Wight. The Mercian king had been Aethelwalh's godfather on the occasion of his baptism. As a result of this development, King Arwald of the Isle of Wight had a new overlord, and the borders of the South Saxon kingdom reached their greatest extent. That it took Aethelwalh another eight years before he was able to convert the South Saxons to the new religion has already been discussed. The King's oppotunity arose in 681, when the exiled Bishop Wilfrid was invited into Sussex to convert Aethelwalh's people, and then, in all likelyhood, only after the King had negotiated successfully the semi-independent chieftains. According to Wilfrid's biographer, the ruler of the South Saxons granted land to the Northumbrian bishop from the hidage of the royal estate, for the foundation of a monastry at Selsey.This and other tenures appear to have been confirmed in 686 by Caedwalla and his under-king in Sussex, Ecgwald. Taking account of a tradition from the Isle of Wight that the king of Sussex and his son were killed at Shalcombe Down, maybe it was on this upland that Aethelwalh was assassinated in 685 (probably by the exiled West Saxon atheling Caedwalla himself), together with his son, very likely his eldest child by Queen Eafe, who was killed while defending his elderly father. The name of the young prince is unknown, but ‘Aethelric’ might be a possibility, since Eafe had a relative called Osric, a prince of Hwicce. Osric was also the name of the alderman who witnessed King Nothhelm's third extant charter. On the basis of the genealogy presented here, this Osric of Sussex was Eafe's grandson, being the son of her daughter, Aethelthryth, by King Nothhelm, but see the footnote*. For Aethelthryth's conjectured children, the reader is refered back to the entries for Osric and Osa in Section 2. Finally, in the February of year in which Aethelwalh was later killed, a force of South Saxons assisted their candidate, Eadred, to gain the Kentian throne. It is hard to imagine that the invasion took place without the compliance of Aethelwalh. This action, which greatly increased the South Saxon sphere of influence, almost certainly ignited the Caedwalla's anger against the South Saxons, who were already in occupation of the province of the Meonware and the Kingdom of Wight. See the entry for Berhthun and Andhun below.

*King Cenwalh returned to Wessex in 648, having been converted to Chritianity at the court of Anna, King of the East Anglians. On his return Cenwalh bequeathed a large portion of West Saxon land to his fraternal nephew, Cuthred Cwichelming. It is believed that Cuthred could have become a co-ruler with Cenwalh, as Cwichelm had co-ruled with Cynegils. If so, then this appointment might have been agreed with Penda before Cenwalh was allowed to return to Wessex. It would have been natural enough for such circumstances to have gone unrecorded by Aelfred the Great's chroniclers.

**As South Saxon charters show, there was a commonality between the naming patterns of the Sussexian and Hwiccean royals. If Queen Aethelthryth, as argued in this hypothesis, was the daughter or Eafe, and Osric and Osa were her children by Nothhelm, then these two sons were named after their maternal relatives Osric, Oshere and Osmund. The contemporaries Eanberht of Hwicce and Aethelberht and Ealdberht of Sussex, the latter contended here to have been the paternal grandsons of Eafe (see their entries below), all shared '-BERHT' names. Similarly, later in the eighth century, we find Waermund and Aethelmund of Sussex, also taken here to have been descended from Eafe, sharing their '-MUND' names with Aethelmund of Hwicce. A fuller discussion on the Hwiccean connection with Sussex can be read in the writer's Supporting Notes to the Nothgyth Quest, which are to be found on the Kessler History Files' website.


EAFE OF HWICCE, QUEEN OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, born in the ?early 640's. A daughter of King Eanfrith of the Hwicceans and a fraternal neice of King Eanhere, her father's co-ruler. It is not impossible that the princes Osric and Oshere, known to have been brothers, might have been Eafe's older brothers and that a member of her dynasty called Osred might have been one of her younger siblings. Perhaps Eafe also had sisters. Of the next generation, Oshere's sons Aethelheard, Aethelweard and Aethelric, together with another prince named Aethelnod, could have been her fraternal nephews. Eafe is known to have married the pagan king Aethelwalh of the South Saxons, most likely in 661, probably on the insitance of the Mercian Wulfhere who was a prince committed to the new religion. Hwicce had been a client state of Mercia since 628 and Sussex came under the supremacy of King Wulfhere in 661. Eafe's people were Christians and maybe their rites had been influenced by the traditions of the neighbouring British church, by whom they were almost certainly converted. The Kingdom of the Hwicceans certainly came within the orbit of both Mercian and Northumbrian Christianity. It has already been conjectured that Aethelthryth and Aethelstan were two of her surviving children by Aethelwalh. There might have been others. The reason for the long lasting commonality between the naming patterns of Hwiccean and the (?Cerdicingas) South Saxon royals, proffered here, is that Eafe was likely to have kept close ties with her own kinsfolk, occasionally revisiting her homeland with the children. Eafe must have brought with her a Christian priest, or relied on the spiritual support of the Irish mission at Cosham, and she probably insisted on her sons and daughters being baptised. However, it was not until the 680's that the Queen of the South Saxons was to see the conversion of her adopted people. The reader is directed to the entries for Aethelthryth and Aethelstan, both to be found in this section, for further conjecture and background.


[SSEAXE] KING WATT, ALDERMEN BERHTHUN AND ANDHUN, BRYNI DUKE OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, QUEEN AETHELTHRYTH AND KING AETHELSTAN.

KING WATT, born in the ?early 640’s. Surmised here to have been the eldest of Aethelwalh’s four illegitimate sons. He appears not to have taken part during the turbulent months that followed his presumed father’s assassination, but he might well have served him as one of Aethelwalh's personal royal aldermen. He became a co-ruling king of the South Saxons, probably appointed by Ine of Wessex in 688, sharing power with King Nothhelm, the dominant ruler, in the early years of the latter’s reign. Also conjecturally, Queen Aethelthryth was the half sister of King Watt.

BERHTHUN AND ANDHUN, ROYAL ALDERMEN, arguably twins born ?circa 645. The conjecture here is that they were the illegitimate sons of Aethelwalh, who entered their father’s service as his personal royal aldermen and that, after 675, they could have represented Aethelwalh's authority in the newly acquired Jutish territories. They were recorded by Bede as being the king's aldermen. Historically they were almost certainly twins. Bede also records that, after Aethelwalh's assassiation, they drove out Caedwalla from the lands ceded to Sussex by Wulfhere, and then ruled jointly over the South Saxons from 685-686. It would appear, therefore, that these brothers held royal power and that they would have regarded themselves as men of regal status, but they did not have the kingship to make them co-ruling Kings of the South Saxons. It is known that Berhthun was killed in 686 while invading Kent to quell an uprising. The documented cause for his invasion went back to the death of the Kentian King Hlothere, who died in February 685 while fighting a force of South Saxons led by his nephew Eadric. Perhaps Eadric's warriors came from East Sussex, supplied by a descendent of Cissa who was a member of the (conjectured) Agnatic Witenagemot. Eadric then shared the Kentian throne with Suaebhard of Essex, supported by the South Saxons. This meant that South Saxon power, in 685, stretched from the Thames estuary and along the Channel coast to the Needles off the Isle of Wight and their kingdom had reached its zenith. On Berhthun’s death, Caedwalla, by now king of the West Saxons, again invaded the territories of Sussex and crushed the South Saxons. Bede’s account of this military campaign suggests that little mercy was shown to the people of Sussex by King Caedwalla.

BRYNI, DUKE OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, born in the ?early 650’s. It is surmised here that he was the youngest of King Aethelwalh’s four illegitimate sons . Evidently he did not take any part in the events of 685 and 686, but he was later recorded in his charter of circa 700, witnessed by the Kings Nothhelm and Watt, as Duke of the South Saxons. He appears to have been the first South Saxon alderman to hold this title It would make sense that he held it owing to his high status, for example, because his father had been king Aethelwalh, whom Bryni might have served as a personal royal alderman. In his charter, Bryni granted four hides at Highleigh in Sussex to Eadberht, the Abbot of Selsey.

QUEEN AETHELTHRYTH, born ?circa 665. This noblewoman is contended here to have been the eldest daughter of Aethelwalh by Queen Eafe, to have married Nothhelm about 684-85, to have become Queen of the South Saxons in 688 and to have had by Nothhelm her sons Osric and Osa/Oswald with unrecorded issue between the eldest and youngest brother. On this supposition, it would seem that Aethelthryth must have had regular contact with her mother's family who ruled in the Kingdom of Hwicce, since the names of her presumed sons by King Nothhelm bear a marked similarity with those of the senior members of the Hiwccean royal house in the time of Aethelthryth's girlhood. It has already been put forward here that her father-in-law was Caedwalla's under-king in Sussex, Ecgwald, who was perhaps a younger son of Cuthwulf Cuthwining and therefore an older relative of the West Saxon king. The marriage thus speculated might be said to support the theoretical Dynasty of Aethelwalh, because the conjectural names making up the family, entered in this section, might not have survived had they been Aethelwalh's kinsmen without such a union. They would otherwise have been assassinated by the hand of Caedwalla. Queen Aethelthryth witnessed King Nothhelm's charter of 717.

KING AETHELSTAN, born in the ?late 660's. The conjecture in this entry includes that he was the eldest surviving son of King Aethelwalh and Queen Eafe, his older full sister being Aethelthryth, and that on the death of his illegitimate half brother, the co-ruling King Watt, around the year 700, Aethelstan was appointed by King Ine to succeed him as co-ruler. It is also alledged here that he would have been a witness to both bloodshed and possibly the murder of his father and elder brother. The postulation in this entry also includes Aethelstan being confirmed as the co-ruling king under Aethelberht on the death of Nothhelm in 722. Aethelstan was to witness a charter, granted by King Nothhelm in 717 to the monks of Selsey, in the presence of his presumed full sister Queen Aethelthryth, but in the absence of the dominant ruler, King Nothhelm. Although not documented history, the following is argued here on a conjectural basis. Firstly, that on the death of Aethelstan's senior partner King Nothhelm, perhaps in 722, Aethelberht, was appointed by Ine of Wessex as the dominant king of the South Saxons (re: above), and to be the unitary king on Aethelstan’s death. Secondly, that the said Aethelberht was the eldest son of Aethelstan. Thirdly, that Aethelstan had a younger son Ealdberht, who was the Ealdberht recorded as a dissident. Further, it is contended that Ealdberht rebelled because he was aggrieved that he had not been included in elevation to kingship. It is also conjectured that Aethelstan, who had seen so much bloodshed in his youth, was able to stay the hand of Ealdberht, after the latter had been defeated by Ine in 722. Finally, it is contended that when Aethelstan died, in 725, Ealdberht decided to gather another force of South Saxons and once again prepare for battle. Ine defeated Ealdberht for a second time, the latter losing his life in combat. Ealdberht's uprisings of 722 and 725 are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.


[SSEAXE] KING AETHELBERHT AND ALDERMAN EALDBERHT.

KING AETHELBERHT OF SUSSEX -)||(- Born in the late 690’s. Account should be taken of the genealogical conjecture already stated that he was the eldest son of the co-ruling King Athelstan, and the elder brother of the Ealdberht, who was recorded as a dissident by the chroniclers. Aethelberht was very likely appointed the dominant king of the South Saxons on the death of Nothhelm (his presumed uncle-in-law), claimed to have been in 722 in this hypothesis. Following the argument here, Ealdberht then rebelled against King Ine because he had not been elevated to kingship as well. This supposed motive is discussed more fully, in the entry for Ealdberht, below. The chroniclers say that Ealdberht was then driven out of Wessex and forced to find sanctuary on the Sussex-Surrey border, with the South Saxons. Defeated by Ine on the Sussex border in 722, Ealdberht was defeated and killed in a second battle in 725. On the death of Athelstan, claimed here to have been in the same year, it is conjectured that King Aethelberht became the unitary king of the South Saxons. It is also presumed that during the middle years of his reign, possibly after 730, when King Aethelheard of the West Saxons lost Berkshire to the Mercians, Aethelberht was able to take advantage of a less powerful Wessex, and throw off the last vestige of a West Saxon yoke that had already been weakened by the abdication of Ine in 726. The commentary of Bede on this matter is relevant here. If this indeed is what happened, then under the rule of Aethelberht, the South Saxons would have experienced a last, strong, native king, his eldest son, Ealdwulf, being destined to succeed to a stable and unitary kingship. Indeed, Aethelberht might also have developed a centralist policy, like that of Pepin Le Bref in France, which was resented by the descendants of Nothhelm. In such circumstances these noblemen might have sought to build a faction to support re-establishing their dynasty. Taking that as the case, then Osmund, assumed above as the eldest grandson of Nothhelm, had clearly laid plans to outmanoeuvre the young heir on his father's death. When Aethelberht died, probably in 758 (see the entry for Osmund above), Ealdwulf, would have found himself opposed by his much older and politically adroit second cousin, Osmund, who then established a new regime of plural kingship. Nevertheless, it would seem that Ealdwulf had many who were loyal to him, because, on the evidence available in the South Saxon charters, he was certainly the senior co-ruler during the Osmundian years.

EALDBERHT, ROYAL ALDERMAN, born in the ?early 700’s. In terms of the conjecture in this entry, he was the second son of Athelstan and voiced his grievances at not being elevated to kingship with his elder brother, Aethelberht, when their uncle King Nothhelm died in 722. Perhaps the attitude of the dissident Ealdberht, or his unwise actions - he might have threatened rebellion, challenged the royal authority of King Ine, who decided to exile him. It is documented that the penalised prince took refuge in the fortress at Taunton, which had been built as a defence against the West Britons. Queen Aethelburh, Ine’s consort, destroyed the fortress, but Ealdberht escaped to the Sussex-Surrey border. Evidently he had supporters there who were ready to give him sanctuary. According to the annals, Ealdberht must have raised a fighting force of South Saxon warriors, and prepared for battle. In the ensuing contest of arms against King Ine and his West Saxon army Ealdberht was defeated. Conceivably, it was Aethelstan, alledged here to have witnessed times of murder and bloodshed in his youth (see the conjecture in the entry for him above), who managed to stay the hand of his rebellious son and broker some kind of peace following Ine’s victory. The annals then tell us that in 725, assumed here to have been the year of Aethelstan's death, Ealdberht gathered another force of South Saxons and again prepared for battle. Once again King Ine defeated Ealdberht’s warriors and the young prince lost his life in the heat of battle.


[SSEAXE] KING EALDWULF AND ALDERMAN AETHELWULF.

EALDWULF, KING (Deposed) AND DUKE OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, born in the ?early 730’s. In this entry the conjecture is that he was the eldest son of King Aethelberht and destined to succeed his father as the unitary king of the South Saxons, but that on King Aethelberht’s death in 758, Ealdwulf’s second cousin, Osmund Osricing, was able to assert himself as the dominant ruler in Sussex. In terms of the genealogy in this hypothesis, Osmund would have been some two decades older than Ealdwulf and politically far more experienced. On charter evidence it can be said that Ealdwulf was recognised as the senoir ranking co-ruler, but his power would have been curtailed by being obliged to co-operate with Osmund’s (presumed) co-ruling brothers, both of whom must have been older than Ealdwulf, who is known to have lived until the 790's. The Osmundian regime weakened regnal authority in Sussex, a development that proved fatal to the South Saxon monarchy. That Ealdwulf was deposed by King Offa in 772, but was appointed later as the third Duke of the South Saxons, probably on the death of his predecessor, Oslac, before 786. There is a surviving charter issued by Ealdwulf in this year which confirms his status as duke.

AETHELWULF, ROYAL ALDERMAN, born ?circa 735. It is surmised here that he was Ealdwulf’s younger brother, since his name fits with that of Ealdwulf in a typical Anglo-Saxon naming pattern for siblings. He held no royal office under the dominant King Osmund and he held no share of power during the earlier years of King Offa’s ducal deputies in Sussex. However, it appears that Aethelwulf was allowed some share in authority during the tenure of Offa's third duke, assumed here to have been his elder brother, since Aethelwulf was the only witness to Ealdwulf’s last ducal charter, drawn up in 791.




[SSEAXE] SECTION V. THE (CONJECTURED) CENSORING OF SOUTH SAXON HISTORY. COVERING THE PERIOD 477-CIRCA796.

There was no English armour left,
Nor any English thing,
When Alfred came to Athelney
To be an English king. ~~ G K Chesterton


It would seem most unlikely that there are any missing pages of South Saxon history, but there might well have been a need for as much as possible of that history to be forgotten. Perhaps, because of the threat of dynastic claims, little mention was made of Sussex in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and when an entry was given it was not necessarily the whole truth. As has been said, the writer believes that the annal for 607 was rhetorical and avoided having to recount how stalwartly the South Saxons fought against the West Saxons during the reign of King Ceolwulf. It is also contended here that the entry for 661 conveniently condensed the actual events of Aethelwalh's reign into one annal. Obviously the compilers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles relied heavily on the Venerable Bede. However, Bede was a Norhthumbrian priest who used his abilities for his own agenda. In Southumbrian England, Aelfred's chroniclers had easy access to an aural history in Sussex, which probably remained largely intact, even if certain names had already become distorted, before these accounts had been overtaken by the story of a unified England. That any fragments of a royal legend have remained is entirely down to Bede, Roger of Wendover, together with elements that survived amongst the people of West and East Sussex and a tradition from the Isle of Wight. So why was this readily available source not used? The suggestion profered here is that the patrilinear lineage of Alderman Aethelmund of Sussex, as presumed in this hypothesis, matched that of King Ecgberht of Wessex, making the direct male descendants of both noblemen high-born Cerdicingas. Added to which, and on the same conjectural terms, the patrilinear lineage of Ealdberht Aethelberhting, and his direct male descendants, might have been the only line whose family could trace their patrilinear descent back to King Cynegils. If, as this hypothesis has argued, Aelfred the Great had an ancestor in Cissa Aelling, and that ancestry had been recorded, it could have raised the profile of any Aellingas dynastic claims in a way that was not favourable for Wessex, especially if those claims could have developed into political propaganda. In paticular this might have caused concern, had the South Saxons experienced the kind of political history that the influence of an hereditary witenagemot would inevitably have brought about (The argument for this conjecture has already been discussed). Such a direction of thought would seem to support the theory that an agnatic institution dating back to the reign of Cissa had once existed.
It would also have been expedient not to chronicle that the Cerdicingas of Sussex had been affected by the decisive action of a Mercian ruler three times, if indeed, as this hypothesis concludes, that is what happened. To recap on these conjectured events, firstly, because of Penda and Aethelwalh, secondly, because of Wulfhere and Aethelwalh, and thirdly, because the (presumed) Cerdicingas in Sussex had been deposed by another Mercian king, namely Offa, the great statesman who had been on terms with Charlemagne. If the historical cotention here is correct, then it would have been prudent to keep the royal history of the South Saxons suppressed and largely undocumented. The long passage of time under the overlordship of the West Saxon rulers between the death of King Cissa in 567 and the appointment of King Aethelwalh in 645, if this is what actually transpired, would have made this kind of censorship easier to implement. The kingdom of the South Saxons was far from having had an unbroken history. Besides which, the sub-kingdom of Sussex, in existance from 825 to 860, and a dependency of the sub-kings of Kent under Wessex, had been relegated to the past by the policy of King Aelfred's brother, Aethelred. When this prince became King of Wessex in 860, he did not appoint a successor to himself as a sub-king over the eastern part of his kingdom. By the time Aelfred's chroniclers had begun their annals, Wessex had been governed by one ruler for at least thirty years. However, there is one further thought to complete the discussion here in support of this conjectured censoring of South Saxon history. In the face of continuing Viking power, there was a need for a unified identity in Wessex, led by a king whose ancestry went back, via Cerdic, to Adam and Eve. The writer would mention, in passing, that Cerdic Elsing was very likely the illegitimate son of a British lord by a Saxon. His original name might have been Ceredig ab Elised, MWO. It must have been imperative that there was no return to a tribal South Saxon kingdom caused by a Sussex claimant to royal power, and equally imperative to avoid the instability in the South East that such an outcome might have brought about. This can be illustrated by King Aelfred's reluctance, near the end of his nation building reign, to bequeath to Eadweard the Atheling the extinct thrones of Kent and Sussex. In the event, Aelfred the Great died at a comparatively young age and Eadweard inherited his father's kingdom of Wessex. Maybe it is worth remembering, in context of this section, that a strong local identity in Winchelsea kept alive the unrecorded history of Cissa's son Wncheling, properly Wine Cissing, until at least the late nineteenth century. Furthermore, even the small pocket of Jutes around Hastings held fast to their separate ethnicity from the descendents of the South Saxons right up to the Norman conquest.




[SSEAXE] SECTION VI. THE RECONSTRUCTED LIST OF THE KINGS AND RULERS OF THE SOUTH SAXONS, GIVING THEIR STATUS AND REGNAL DATES. COVERING THE PERIOD 477-CIRCA796.

The reader should keep in mind that much of the following regnal list is inevitably speculation, there being no authentic list for Sussex available.


The Aellean Warlordship 477-514 (Held by Aelle and his kindred).

Aelle~~~~~~~~~477-491 Warlord.
Aelle and Cissa 491-514 Warlord and Co-warlord.


The Cissan Kingdom 514-567 (Held by the close kindred of Cissa).

Cissa~~~~~~~~~514-567 Unitary King.
Wine~~~~~~~~~circa 521-563 Co-ruling Royal Alderman.

The Regnal South Saxon Chieftains, lead by their Agnatic Witenagemot, overlorded by the Kings of the West Saxons, 567-645.


The Re-established Kingdom 645-772 (Held by the Sussex Cerdicingas).

Aethelwalh~~~~~~~~~~~~645-685 Unitary King.
Berhtun/Andhun~~~~~~~685-686 The co-ruling Royal Aldermen.
Ecgwald~~~~~~~~~~~~~~686-688 Caedwalla’s Under-king.
Nothhelm/Watt~~~~~~~~688-c.700 Dominant & Co-ruling King.
Nothhelm/Aethelstan c.700-722 Dominant & Co-ruling King.
Aethelberht/Aethelstan 722-725 Dominant & Co-ruling King.
Aethelberht~~~~~~~~~~725-758 Unitary King.
Osmund with Ealdwulf/Aelfwald/Oslac 758-772 Dominant King & three co-rulers.


Rule of the King of the Mercians 772-796.
The Dukes of the South Saxons, under King Offa of the Mercians who died in 796. It appears that Offa would appoint a succeeding duke after the death of his predecessor.

Oswald~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~First Duke 772-?780.
Oslac~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Second Duke ?780-before 786.
Ealdwulf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Third Duke from before 786-after 791.




[SSEAXE] THE CONCLUSION.

In theory, at least, the Nothgyth Quest Hypothesis reveals that the 7000 families living in Sussex lived principally under the rule of local chieftains with regnal authority. As with the clans of Gaeldom, these families were almost certainly related to their territorial chieftains. Indeed, in line with the conjectured kingship of Aelle on Hayling Island, these noblemen would probably have regarded themselves as holding kingly status within the bounds of their own inherited settlements. Sussex place names may well testify that there was also a line of power bases held by the high standing descendants of those aldermen who led the first landing on Selsey Bill in 477. Altough the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles state that Aelle, the first Bretwalda, was the earliest King of the South Saxons, the sequence of events proposed in the Nothgyth Quest shows that it could have been Cissa who founded the original Kingdom of the South Saxons and that to achieve this he might have gained the support of his father's warmoot by establishing its membership as the 'Agnatic Witenagemot of the South Saxons'. This hypothesis has talked of the Cissan Kingdom. That is because, in the view of its author, the first South Saxon kingdom was essentially to do with both the vision and ambition of Cissa, a former co-warlord in a world where military leadership had already passed to the mixed race Cerdic Elsing, perhaps in reality Ceredig ab Elised MWO. King Cissa proved to be a towering figure who lived to be ninety and who almost certainly had become a legend in his own life time. It has also been argued that the Sussex realm did indeed devolve on Ceawlin, as recorded by Roger of Wendover, and that this development had been made possible since the second Bretwalda had married into King Cissa's family. At first this arrangement appears to have been a success, for it avoided internecine war in Sussex while guaranteeing the regal status of South Saxon chieftaincy. However, when Ceowulf turned his aggression against the kingly aldermen of the South Saxons, the latter took up arms, perhaps led by Cuthwine, and sustained a campaign to defend themselves that might well have lasted throughout Ceolwulf's reign. The writer would put forward the suggestion that if the leading aldermen of the South Saxons exercised Kingship as part of an agreement between themselves and Ceawlin in 567, then Ceolwulf aimed to divest them of this regnality. It has already been contended, in the third section, that there was probably a return to peace after protracted outbreaks of armed conflict between South and West Saxons after 611. However, the next generation of South Saxon leaders might have voiced a desire for a Sussex based monarchy to be re-established, perhaps against the background of their owm commitment to the old pagan religion and the political baptism of King Cynegils and Cwichelm, his co-ruling son. This would have presented an open invitation to Penda of the Mercians, in the crisis of 645, to refound the Channel Coast kingdom as suggested in this hypothesis.
During the second period of South Saxon monarchy, there remains a clear indication, from the names of royal witnesses to the relevant charters, that there were two dynasties apparently reigning together in Sussex. This would seem a puzzling situation to try and understand. The Nothgyth Quest Hypothesis has sought to solve this problem by proposing that these were twin dynasties, both directly descended from Cerdic and, as a result, branches of the West Saxon royal house. It has been argued that Ecgwald was a grandson of Cuthwine and that Aethelwalh was a son of Cynegils and it therefore follows that the latter was a brother of King Centwine. Centwine clearly had no desire to support his exiled Atheling's invasion of Aethelwalh's kingdom. Furthermore, it has also been contended that there was a union between Ecgwald's son, who was Nothhelm, and the eldest daughter of Aethelwalh by Eafe of Hwicce, who was Aethelthryth. These speculations would seem to answer most of the dynastic dilemas that inevitably arise when dealing with eighth century Sussex, including the likely connections of both dynasties with the Hwiccean royal family.
Moving on into the eighth century, Aethelred, considered by some commentators to have been the last truly independent King of the South Saxons, has been interpreted in his entry as a ruler committed to a centralising policy, probably influenced by the rule of Charles Martel and his son, Pepin Le Bref, in France, realising that a fragmented system of power sharing could not survive in the eighth century. If this was the case, then his efforts were obviously ill-fated. The reign of Osmund and his co-ruler, Ealdwulf, as the leading kings in Sussex, gives a glimpse, confirmed by the charters of the period, on the power sharing process within the South Saxon realm. One has but to add to this scene the concept already discussed of an agnatic witenagemot, to imagine the difficulties this assembly might have caused to Osmund, as the dominant king, and his co-rulers. Even without the Mercian conquest, such a fragile system of fragmented power would have been unlikely to survive into the ninth century, especially with the rivalries which must have gone with it. No doubt the average South Saxon welcomed the security of being under Mercian rule and the increased prosperity which followed. Whether or not Offa and his immediate successors, Ecgfrith and Coenwulf, the latter reigned 796-821, is not known. A native moot of chieftains still operating in their isolated province of the South Saxons, even better a Sussex witan, hereditary or otherwise, which remained loyal to the Mercian throne, would doubtless have proved invaluable. In the case of a kingless Sussex the question might be asked, who surrendered the territory to Aethelwulf, the heir to Ecgberht King of the West Saxons, after the battle of Ellendun in 825? Maybe an elite body of senior noblemen who could claim agnatic descent from Aelle and his closest kinsmen. Where would this surrender have taken place? Perhaps fidelity to Wessex was sworn where Aethelwulf was buried in 858, in St Cuthman's wooden church at Steyning.
Basically, the authority of kingship amongst the nobility of the South Saxons probably was shared, even under the royal government of Cissa and Aethelwalh. Although, as has already been stated, the writer believes, judging by the charters witnessed or reconfirmed by Aethelred, that this king did try to establish a stronger monarchy for the South Saxons. If this was so, then the attempt must inevitably have failed, very likely because in Sussex all senior members of the native nobility would have had an ancient claim to some regal standing, and the power that went with it. The writer would suggest that the way in which the South Saxon kingdom was possibly first founded was bound to have led to this kind of circumstance. A native agnatic witenagemot whose members were local sub-kings, in all but name, could have mounted a considerable challenge to the authority of a later king and his royal co-rulers, if all of them had been of West Saxon descent, perhaps even confining much of their effective influence to Sussex west of the Arun. Far from the political history of Sussex being a blank canvass, perhaps owing to missing pages, this hypothesis has sought to show that the truth was probably otherwise and that a rich history was likely to have been censored for dynastic reasons. The South Saxons had four significant and long reigning kings, Cissa, Aethelwalh, Nothhelm and Aethelred. There were a number of lesser kings, notably the dominant Osmund. The writer believes that Aelle, the first Bretwalda, was essentially a warlord. This is a deceptively short list for a period covering nearly three hundred years, appearing to present a considerable dilemma. The answer would seem to be found in the concept of a South Saxon chieftain with regnal status in his own aldermanry, or 'petty king', a circumstance which would certainly have given rise to politics and this is element that is totally lacking in recorded history. Looking at the scene from another viewpoint, when serious disputes came about, such regal chieftains must either have resorted to internecine warfare or the skill of politics. The writer believes, that for the most part, it would have been the latter.


[SSEAX] THE END OF THE HYPOTHESIS.




POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you wish to study the material employed in developing the Nothgyth Quest Hypothesis, please go to those entries asterisked* in the General Bibliography and Other Sources (given below), which are to be found in section A. These entries are for essential reference and they will help you to separate the conjecture here from the remembered tradition and recorded history used as a framework. It is hoped that you will find enough of interest in this article to make another visit. David Slaughter




GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES. The main reference material employed for this hypothesis.


A.Primary Reading and Reference (in alphabetical order).

Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: Begun c. 890.*
Anglo-Saxon Genealogical Tables.
Anglo-Saxon Isle of Wight 400-900 AD: BBCh 2g2.*
Charters of Selsey : S.E.Kelly, 1998.*
Flowers of History : Roger of Wendover, 1237.*
Kelly's Post Office Directory (Sussex), 1867.*
Kings (and Aldermen ) of Hwicce : Wikipedia.
Kings and Queens : Lambert and Gray, 1991*
Old English at the University of Calgary. (Website)
Place-names of Sudsexe, Domesday book, 1086.
Vortigern Studies: Howard Wiseman. (Website)

B. Secondary Reading and Reference (in date order)

Y Gododdin: Aneirin, c.595.
Beowulf : Anonymous, c.725.
Ecclesiastical History of the English People : Bede, 731.
Hanes y Brythoniaid : Nennius, 810.
Cyfraith Hywel Dda (North European Tribal Law): Completed 949.
Brut y Tywysogion (from 680), 14th Century.
Old English Dictionary: Bosworth and Toller , 1898/1921.
The Place Names of England and Wales : J.B. Johnston, 1915.
A History of France, New & Revised Edition, Book 1: W.H. Jervis,
(with additional chapters by W.J.N. Griffith) 1926.
Arthur’s Britain : Lesley Alcock, 1978.
Regia Anglorum : The society’s website.
Saxon Sussex : Martin Bell, PFD/Adobe Acrobat.
Meonware Supporting Notes, on the Kessler History Files site : David Slaughter, 2008.

C. Further Reading and Reference (in date order).

Nooks and Corners of Old Sussex : The Rev. P de Putron, 1875.
Murray’s Classical Atlas for Schools : Edited by G.B.Grundy, Second Edition reprint, 1963.
The Medieval Traveller : Norbert Ohler, 1995.
King Arthur : Michael St John Parker, Pitkin reprint 1996.
The Times Atlas of World History : Edited by Geoffrey Barraclough, the Fourth Edition ( edited by Geoffrey Parker ), reprinted 1997.
Roman Britain, a New History : Guy de la Bédoyèr.


D. Supplemntary Reading (in date order)

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, J.B. Smith. Wales University Press, 1986. Recommended for those visitors able to read Welsh. About Llywelyn II, a powerful prince who established a recognised Welsh state, based on an alliance of princes. The book gives an insight into the kingdom building abilities that must have been required of Saxon rulers like Ceawlin of Wessex, even if set in the thirteenth century rather than the sixth.

Cambridge Illustrated History Medicine : Edited by Roy Porter, first paperback edition 2001. Chapter I, The History of Disease by Kenneth K. Kiple, is of interest here. Especially the first four sections of Kiple's chapter for illness and health in earlier times, such as the Anglo-Saxon period of England.




FOR COMPLETE PROFILE OF THE AUTHOR AND CONTACT:

To view further information on the author of the Nothgyth Quest Hypothesis for the Rulers of th South Saxons, please scroll down to ABOUT ME and click on 'My Complete Profile' at the bottom of this menu. Here, the visitor can also access the earliest version of the Nothgyth Quest by clicking on 'My Web Page' and can contact David Slaughter by clicking on 'Email' to send any wiews on this article. Alternatively, click on 'comments' at the top of the menu. Any constructive criticism, or observation, will be gladly received and your communication answered.