Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
11 October 2010
16:3974528King Ethelbert of Kent is the first Christian Monarch in Anglo-Saxon history, and established the diocese of Canterbury, Kent's capital during his reign. King Ethelbert ruled Kent until 616. He also became Bretwalda, meaning primary King of all Anglo-Saxon Britain, from Kent to Northumbria. He wrote the first English code of law, in which he also established which authority the Church could hold in Kent.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in Rome were subordinate to his authority in Church matters in Kent, and were not allowed to enforce any ecclesiastical laws or regulations over the people, including mass-baptism in water. King Ethelbert had converted to the Christian Faith spiritually through his Christian wife Queen Bertha, daughter of the king of the Franks, before Augustine of Rome ever set foot on English soil. He believed in spiritual conversion of individuals, and where-as Augustine failed completely to carry out any of the Pope's orders given to him before leaving Rome - these orders being to assert papal authority over the Celtic Church of Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland, and to assert Christianity all over England - our great King Ethelbert of Kent established the freedom of Christian illumination for his people in Kent, allowing Christianity to take its course freely.
He recognised Christ as Leader of the Church, and not himself!
Considering the origins of our English Church, also in connection with the work carried out several decades later during the seventh century by Irish and Scottish missionaries in Northumbria, East Anglia, Mercia and Wessex, who established the Celtic Church in almost all the remaining Anglo-Saxon kingdoms - see the glorious Saint Aidan Bishop of Lindisfarne - would it be fair to conclude that King Henry VIII cannot have been the head of the English Church, as no English monarch before him, including King Ethelbert of Kent and King Oswald of Northumbria, ever gave themselves this title?
To attract the attention of the forumites to this thread's relation to Dover, King Ethelbert's son, Eadbald, after succeeding his father as King of Kent, established an ecclesiastical college at Saint Mary's at the Castle, and King Whitered of Kent, who ruled until the 23rd March 725, had the priory of Saint Martin built in Dover in present-day Market Square, which Henry VIII ordered to be torn down together with the priory of Saint Martin and Saint Mary near present-day Priory station.
I personally am in favour of not recognising the title 'head of the Church of England' as pertaining to Henry VIII. People who rip down churches whole-sale cannot be 'head of the Church of England'!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 October 2010
17:3974534an excellent and interesting read alex.
i am surprised that king ethelebert allowed people to choose whether to convert to christianity.
i read some time back about the vikings, and they used to complain that they had to convert to the "white christ" in these islands or be killed.
they thought that the god of peace and love didn't fit with them.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
11 October 2010
17:4374537Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
11 October 2010
17:5074540The recently erected statues in Lady Wootton's Green in Canterbury, are, I believe, of the above-mentioned King and Queen. When I say recent, I mean within the last 10 years or so.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
11 October 2010
19:2974554peter,you mean to say some one has done [or had] an erection in the last 10 years.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
11 October 2010
19:5374559Well Howard, King Ethelbert was very wise, and he stated by law that Christianity in Kent is free for all those who wish to choose it. It was in no way compulsary. In fact his son Eadbald, who succeeded him when he died, was a pagan, and only converted later to Christianity, following his own conscience. That was early seventh century.
As for the Vikings, they actually burned churches and monasteries and robbed them of all silver, cattle and food, and killed or enslaved the priests and monks. Those Danes who did settle in England with their families were a minority among many Anglo-Saxons, and eventually converted, they-, or their descendents.
Vikings (eighth- tenth centuries) would only be killed if they were caught plundering and killing the English, but were given the possibility to convert to Christianity to avoid death. Those Danes and Norsemen who were not caught plundering and killing were NEVER put to death on account of their being pagan!
During the centuries of Viking raids and wars in the British Isles, so many people on both sides died, because many Danes and Norsemen also fell on the battle-field, or drowned on their way here from Scandinavia.
The last land battle between English and Norsemen (these latter being from Norway) was in 1066, a few days before William the Norman landed in Sussex, and almost the entire Norwegian army was wiped out on the battle-field, at Stanford Bridge in Northumbria. However, Harold allowed the remaining Norwegian soldiers still standing to go back to Norway, and only 24 Norwegian ships were enough to accomodate them. They had come with hundreds of ships!
At that time, the Norwegians had already converted to Christianity!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 October 2010
20:3774576alex
we are reading different history books, i have read many of the viking sagas.
yes the battle of stamford bridge when we stuck it up them was probably the reason why william of normandy was able to beat the armies of our very own king harold.
no chance of an army beating an invading force in north yorkshire then walking all the way to sussex to take on another invader.
not all vikings were rapists and pillagers, some just settled here to become farmers(none tried to claim benefits) and were subjected to torture and murder because they worshipped their pagan gods, despite the fact they had no problem with other peoples beliefs.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
11 October 2010
20:4674579Howard, in fact I did write that those Vikings who were not caught plundering and killing were NOT put to death on account of their being pagan! And also that those who settled in England with their families eventually converted - they or their descendants - and I was implying therewith that they got on with the local Anglo-Saxon population.
Those who settled down recognised freedon of religion, as this was the only way that the English would accept them, as the Vikings were pagan and the English were Christians.
It may be that in the battles that later followed, when Wessex and Mercia and English Northumbria regained control of all England, some pagan Danes were mobbed by the local Anglo-Saxons, but on the whole they were not mobbed or molested and were integrated into English society!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
11 October 2010
20:4974580As for the Battle of Hastings, it is more complex than that, Howard, and not quite so straight forward as you put it!
