Thurkil, while he was still in England, headed the list. Thurkil was a Dane of noble birth, the son of Harold who was earl in Scania. He was a typical viking, tall, strong, and valorous, and must have been a masterly man, one in whom warriors readily recognised the qualities of chieftainship. He had part in the ill-fated expedition that ended in the crushing defeat of Hjôrunga Bay. He also fought at Swald, where he is said to have served on the ship of his former enemy, Eric the Earl. 2 In 1009 he transferred his activities to England and from that year he remained almost continuously on the island till his death about fifteen years later.

 

The old viking had several claims on the King's gratitude. Had he not deserted Ethelred at such an opportune moment, Canute might never have won the English crown. The statement of the sagas that Thurkil was Canute's foster-father has been refe red to elsewhere. The foster-relationship, if the sagas are correct, would not only help to explain how Thurkil came to hold such eminent positions in Canute's English and Danish kingdoms, but may also account for the confidence that Canute reposed in Thurkil's son Harold, who may have been the King's foster-brother. The battles of Sherstone and Ashington no doubt also had a share in securing preeminence for the tall pirate. Sherstone, says the Encomiast, gained for Thurkil a large share of the fatherland. He is prominently mentioned as one of those most eager to fight at Ashington, especially after it was reported that the raven had appeared with proper gestures on the Danish banner.

In his old age Thurkil married an Englishwoman, Edith, probably one of Ethelred's daughters, the widow of Earl Eadric. He ruled as English earl from 1017 to 1021. After Canute's return from Denmark in 1020, some misunderstanding seems to have arisen between him and the old war-chief; for toward the close of the next year Thurkil was exiled. The cause for this is not known; perhaps Canute feared his growing influence, especially after his marriage to the former King's daughter. A reconciliation was brought about a year later; but for some reason the King preferred to leave him as his lieutenant in Denmark, and he was never restored to his English dignities.

 

Eric, Earl of Northumbria, governed this region from 1016 to 1023. He seems to have been Earl Hakon's oldest son, and is said to have been of bastard birth, the son of a low-born woman, who had attracted the Earl in his younger years. He grew up to be extremely handsome and clever, but never enjoyed his father's good-will. The circumstances of Eric's promotion to the Northern earldom have been discussed in an earlier chapter. As the Scandinavian colonies north of the Humber were Norwegian rather than Danish, the appointment of a Norse ruler was doubtless a popular act.

 

Eadric was allowed to continue as governor of Mercia. Whether all the old Mercian region made one earldom is uncertain; most likely it did not extend to the western limits, as several smaller earldoms appear to have been located along the Welsh border. For one year only was Eadric the Grasper permitted to enjoy his dignities; at the first opportunity Canute deprived him not only of honours but of life.

 

Eglaf, Thurkil's old companion in arms, seems to have been given territories to rule in the lower Severn Valley. Eglaf was one of the leaders in the great expedition of 1009. He was evidently one of those who entered Ethelred's service when peace was made; but during the closing years of the conflict, he was doubtless fighting for Canute. He was consequently one of the chiefs who might claim a particular reward. He was also of high lineage, the son of a powerful Danish chief, Thorgils Sprakaleg, and the brother of Ulf, who was married to Canute's sister Estrid.

 

In the Worcester country an Earl Hakon was placed in control. He was evidently Eric's son and Canute's nephew, the young Hakon whom King Olaf drove out of Norway in the autumn of 1015. The youthful earl (he was probably not more than twenty years old in 1017, perhaps even younger) is described as an exceedingly handsome man with "hair that was long and fair like silk"; but warfare was evidently not to his taste. For a decade or more he remained in Canute's service in England. In 1026, hostilities broke out between Norway and Denmark; the result was the final expulsion of King Olaf and the restoration of Hakon to his Norse vice-royalty. Soon afterwards he perished in shipwreck.

 

Godwin is the first English earl of importance to appear among Canute's magnates. From 1019 to the close of the reign his name appears in almost every charter, and invariably as earl or with some corresponding title. The fact that Godwin found it possible to be present so frequently when grants were to be witnessed would indicate that he could not have been located far away from the local court; perhaps he was closely attached to it. Though his ancestry is a matter of doubt, he was probably not connected with the Old English aristocracy. This defect Canute remedied by giving him a noble Danish woman of his own household for wife. Godwin was consequently closely associated with the new dynasty.

 

Of the remaining magnates, Ethelwerd, Leofwine, Godric, Ulf, and Ranig, little is really known. Ethelwerd seems to have had some authority in the extreme Southwest. Ranig's earldom was the modern shire of Hereford. There is nothing to indicate what territories were controlled by Godric and Ulf. Leofwine probably succeeded to Eadric's position as chief ruler in Mercia. In the list we should probably include Eadulf Cudel who seems to have succeeded to some power north of the Tees after the murder of his brother Uhtred; but whether he was under the lordship of Eric or held directly from Canute cannot be known.

 

These were the men with whom Canute shared his authority during the first ten years of his reign. It will be seen that the more important places in the local government were given to Danes and Northmen. So far as we know, only two of Ethelred's ealdormen were retained in their offices; of these the one soon suffered exile, while the other appears to have played but a small part in the councils of Canute. Two appointments were made from the native population, those of Godwin and Leofwine. In the case of Godwin it is to be observed that he was bound to the new dynasty by the noble ties of marriage. As to Leofwine's ancestry we are not informed; but there are indications that some of his forefathers may have been Northmen.

 

The more prominent of Canute's earls were drawn from three illustrious families in the North, one Norwegian and two Danish. Thurkil's descent from the Scanian earls has already been noted. Eric and his son Hakon represented the lordly race of Earl Hakon the Bad. A great Danish chief, Thorgils Sprakaleg, had two sons who bore the earl's title in England, Ulf and Eglaf, a son-in-law, Godwin, and a few years later a nephew, Siward the Strong, the lord of Northumbria. Two of these earls were married to sisters of Canute: Eric to Gytha, and Ulf to Estrid. Godwin was married to Canute's kins­woman. Hakon was the King's nephew. Thurkil was his reputed foster-father. It seems that Canute at first had in mind to establish in England a new aristocracy of Scandinavian origin, bound to the throne by the noble ties of kinship and marriage. To this aristocracy the North contributed noble and vigorous blood.

 

In the King's household, so far as we can learn anything about it, we find the same preference for men of Northern ancestry. Ordinarily, the thegns who witnessed royal grants may be taken to have been warriors or officials connected with the royal court. The signatures of more than half of these show names that are unmistakably Scandinavian. Usually, the Northmen sign before their Saxon fellows. The Old Norse language was probably used to a large extent at court; at least we know that the scalds who sang in praise of the "greatest king under heaven" composed their lays in Canute's native language.

 

The year 1017, which witnessed the exaltation of the foreigners into English officialdom, also beheld a series of executions that still further weakened the English by removing their natural leaders. Most of these are associated with a Christmas gemot, when Canute was celebrating the first anniversary of his rule as king of England. Of the victims the most famous was Eadric, the Earl of Mercia. For ten years he had been a power in his region, though at no time does it appear that his word of honour or his pledge of loyalty could have had any value. In all the English sources he is represented as endowed with the instincts of treason, though the Encomiast is careful to apply no term stronger than turncoat. At the same time, it is clear that Eadric the Grasper was a man of real abilities; in spite of the fact that he held allegiance lightly, he seems to have retained his influence to the last. He was, says one writer, a man of low origin, one whom the tongue had brought riches and rank, clever in wit, pleasant in speech, but surpassing all men of the time in envy, perfidy, crime, and cruelty.

 

The murder of Eadric was directly in line with Canute's policy of building up a new Scandinavian aristocracy, devoted to himself, and endowed with large local authority. The new order could not be built on such men as Eadric; by his marriage to Ethelred's daughter he was too closely connected with the old order of things. Furthermore, a man who found it so easy to be disloyal could not safely be entrusted with such great territorial authority as the earlship of Mercia. There had been in this same year extensive plotting among the survivors of the Anglian nobility, and it is likely that Eadric was involved in this. It is also related that the Earl was not satisfied with the King's reward, which may mean that he objected to having independent earldoms carved out of Western Mercia. At any rate, Canute was not reluctant to remove him. Eric appears to have acted as executioner; and the career of the Grasper came to a sudden end. The murder, so far as we can see, was popular; among the men of power Eadric can have had few friends or perhaps none at all.

 

Three other lords are mentioned as having suffered death on the same occasion: Northman, the son of Leofwine, and two lords from the South­west. There can be little doubt that these men were convicted of treacherous plotting and that the punishment was regarded as merited. It is a remarkable fact that Northman's death did not alienate his family from the new dynasty: his father Leofwine succeeded to Eadric's dignities and his brother Leofric to Northman's own place of influence; "and the king afterwards held him very dear."

 

Some of these executions should probably be placed in connection with certain measures taken against the former dynasty. Here again we have anxious care to secure the new throne. Six sons appear to have been born to Ethelred before his marriage to the Norman Emma; but of these only two or at most three seem to have survived their father. After Edmund Ironside's death, Edwy alone remained; he is said to have been Edmund's full brother and a youth of promise. Evidently Canute intended to spare his life, but ordered him to go into exile. But the Etheling secretly returned to England and hid for a time in Tavistock monastery. He was evidently discovered, and Canute procured his death. As Tavistock is in Devonshire, the execution of the two magnates from the Southwest may readily be explained on the supposition that they were plotting in Edwy's favour.

 

The London assembly seems to have assumed that certain rights were reserved to the infant sons of Edmund, but that the guardianship of the children had been given to Canute. They were scarcely a problem in 1017; still, it was necessary to make them permanently harmless. It will be remembered that Edmund married Sigeferth's widow some time in the year 1015, perhaps in early summer. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful whether the two boys, Edward and Edmund, were both the sons of the unfortunate Aldgyth; if they were they must have been twins, or the younger must have been born a posthumous child, some time in 1017, the year of their banishment.

 

But if Florence's account is trustworthy, the status of the two was discussed at the Christmas gemot following Edmund's death in 1016.

 

To slay the children of a "brother" who had committed them to his care and protection must have seemed to Canute a rude and perhaps risky procedure; it was therefore thought best to send them out of the land. Accordingly the ethelings were sent to the "king of the Slavs", who was instructed to remove them from the land of the living. This particular king was evidently Canute's maternal uncle, the mighty Boleslav, duke and later king of Poland. Boleslav took pity on the poor children and failed to dispose of them as requested. In 1025, he was succeeded by his son Mieczislav, who entered into close relations with King Stephen of Hungary. It was probably some time after 1025, therefore, that the ethelings were transferred to the Hungarian court, where they grew to manhood. After forty years of exile, one of them returned to England, but died soon after he had landed.

 

It seems to have been Canute's purpose finally to destroy the house of Alfred to the last male descendant. The two most dangerous heirs were, however, beyond his reach: the sons of Ethelred and Emma were safe with their mother in Normandy. There was close friendship between the lords of Rouen and the rulers of the North; still, Duke Richard could not be expected to ignore the claims of his own kinsmen. So long as the ethelings remained in Normandy, there would always be danger of a Norman invasion combined with a Saxon revolt in the interest of the fugitive princes, Alfred and Edward.

 

Canute was a resourceful king: these princes, too, could be rendered comparatively harmless. If their mother Emma should be restored to her old position as reigning queen of England, her Norman relatives might find it inconvenient to support an English uprising. This seems to be the true motive for Canute's seemingly unnatural marriage. Historians have seen in it a hope and an attempt to conciliate the English people, as in this way the new King would become identified with the former dynasty. But such a theory does scant justice to the moral sense of the Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, neither Ethelred nor Emma had ever enjoyed real popularity. There is no doubt that a princess of the blood royal could have been found for a consort, if the prime consideration had been to contract a popular marriage. It seems rather that in this matter Canute acted in defiance of English public sentiment and for the express purpose of averting a real danger from beyond the Channel. Apparently, Emma took kindly to Canute's plans, for she is said to have stipulated that if sons were born to them, they should be preferred to Canute's older children; thus by inference the rights of her sons in Normandy were abandoned.

 

Earlier in his career, Canute had formed an irregular connection with an English or Anglo­Danish woman of noble birth, Elgiva, the daughter of Elfhelm, who at one time ruled in Deira as ealdorman. Her mother's name is given as Ulfrun, a name that is Scandinavian in both its component parts. The family was evidently not strictly loyal to the Saxon line, for in 1006, just after Sweyn's return to Denmark, Elfhelm was slain and his two sons blinded by royal orders. Elgiva must have had relatives at Northampton, for the Chronicler knows her as the woman from Northampton. She was a woman of great force of character, ambitious and aggressive, though not always tactful, as appears from her later career in Norway. She was never Canute's wife; but, in the eleventh century, vague ideas ruled concerning the marriage relation, even among Christians. Her acquaintance with Canute doubtless began in 1013, when he was left in charge of the camp and fleet at Gainsborough. Two sons she bore to him, Harold Harefoot and Sweyn. On Emma's return to England, Elgiva seems to have been sent with her children to Denmark. We find her later taking an active part in the politics of Wendland, Norway, and probably of England.

 

The Queen, who now came back from Normandy to marry her husband's old enemy, was also a masterful woman. If heredity can be stated in arithmetical terms, she was more than half Danish, as her mother Gunnor was clearly a Danish, woman while her father had a non-Danish mother and also inherited some non-Danish blood on the paternal side. She was evidently beautiful, gifted, and attractive: her flattering Encomiast describes her as of great beauty and wisdom. But the finer instincts that we commonly associate with womanhood cannot have been highly developed in her case; what we seem to find is love of life, a delight in power, and an overpowering ambition to rule. At the time of her second marriage she was a mature woman; it is not likely that she was less than thirty years old, perhaps she was nearer forty. At all events, she must have been several years older than Canute. Two children were born to this marriage: Harthacanute, who ruled briefly in Denmark and England after the death of his father and of his half-brother Harold; and Gunhild, who was married to the Emperor Henry III. Emma lived to a ripe old age and died in 1052, fifty years after her first marriage.

 

The wedding was celebrated in July, 1017, the bride presumably coming from Normandy. The object sought was attained: for more than ten years there seems to have been unbroken peace between England and Normandy. When trouble finally arose after the accession of Robert the Devil, Canute was strong enough to dispense with further alliances.

 

One of the chief necessities was some form of a standing army, a force that the King could depend upon in case of invasion or revolt. Much reliance could obviously not be placed on the old military system; nor could the army of conquest be retained indefinitely. In 1018, or perhaps late in the preceding year, steps were taken to dismiss the Scandinavian host. It has been conjectured that this was done out of consideration for the Saxon race; the presence of the conquerors was an insult to the English people. It had clearly become necessary to disband the viking forces, but for other reasons. A viking host was in its nature an army of conquest, not of occupation, except when the warriors were permitted to seize the land, which was evidently not Canute's intention. In a land of peace, as Canute intended England to be, such a host could not flourish. It should also be remembered that a large part was composed of borrowed troops furnished by the rulers of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; these could not be kept indefinitely. Another Dane-geld was levied, 82,500 pounds in all, to pay off the host; and most of the Northmen departed, to the evident satisfaction of all concerned.

 

The dismissal of one host was followed by the immediate reorganisation of another. Far more important than the departure of the fleet is the fact that the crews of forty ships remained in the royal service: this would mean a force of between three thousand and four thousand men. But the North knew no continuous body of warriors except the military households of chiefs and kings; such a household was now to be organised, but one that was far greater and more splendid than any organisation of the sort known in Scandinavia. According to Sveno's history, Canute had it proclaimed that only those would be admitted to his new guard who were provided with two-edged swords having hilts inlaid with gold. Sveno also tells us that the wealthy warriors made such haste to procure properly ornamented weapons that the sound of the swordsmith's hammer was heard all through the land. In this way, the King succeeded in giving his personal guard an aristocratic stamp.

 

The guard of housecarles or "thingmen," as they were called in the North, was organised as a guild or military fraternity, of which the King ranked as a member, though naturally a most important one. In many respects its rules remind us of the regulations enforced in the Jomburg brotherhood, though its organisation was probably merely typical of the viking fraternities of the age. The purpose of the guild laws, as reported by Sveno and Saxo, was to promote a spirit of fellowship among the members, to secure order in the guard, and to inculcate proper behaviour in the royal garth. When the housecarles were invited to the King's tables, they were seated according to their eminence in warfare, priority of service, or nobility of birth. To be removed to a lower place was counted a disgrace. In addition to daily fare and entertainment, the warriors received wages which were paid monthly, we are told. The bond of service was not permanent, but could be dissolved on New Year's Day only. All quarrels were decided in an assembly of the housecarles in the presence of the King. Members guilty of minor offences, such as failing to care properly for the horse of a fellow guardsman, were assigned lower places at the royal tables. If any one was thrice convicted of such misdeeds, he was given the last and lowest place, where no one was to communicate with him in any way, except that the feasters might throw bones at him if they were so disposed. Whoever should slay a comrade should lose his head or go into exile. Treason was punished by death and the confiscation of the criminal's property.

 

These laws were put into writing several generations after the guard was formed, and it is not likely that all existed from the very beginning. There is, however, nothing in the rules that might not have applied in Canute's own day. It is said that the King himself was the first who seriously violated the guard-laws, in that he slew a house­carle in a moment of anger. Repentance came swiftly; the guard was assembled; kneeling the King confessed his guilt and requested punishment. But the laws gave the King the power of judgment in such cases, and so it must be in this instance as in others. Forty marks was the customary fine, but in this case the King levied nine times that amount and added nine marks as a gift of honour. This fine of 369 marks was divided into three parts: one to go to the heirs of the deceased; one to the guard; and one to the King. But Canute gave his share to the Church and the poor.

 

Though the housecarles are presumed to have possessed horses, the guard was in no sense a cavalry force. Horses were for use on the march, for swift passage from place to place, not for charging on the field. The housecarles were heavily armed, as we know from the description of a ship that Earl Godwin presented to Harthacanute as a peace offering a few years after Canute's death. Eighty warriors, housecarles no doubt, seeing that it was a royal ship, manned the dragon, of whom each one had on each arm a golden armring weighing sixteen ounces, a triple corselet, on the head a helmet in part overlaid with gold; each was girded with a sword that was golden-hilted and bore a Danish ax inlaid with silver and gold hanging from the left shoulder; the left hand held the shield with gilded boss and rivets; in the right hand lay the spear that the Angles call the otgar.

 

It is not to be supposed that the whole guard was always at the court—it was distributed in the strong places throughout the kingdom, especially no doubt in the South. It seems likely that individual housecarles might have homes of their own; at any rate, many of them in time came into possession of English lands as we know from Domesday. No doubt Anglo-Saxon warriors were enrolled in the guard, but in its earlier years, at least, the greater number must have been of Scandinavian ancestry. In the province of Uppland, Sweden, a runic monument has been found that was raised by two sons in memory of their father, who "sat out west in thinglith." As thinglith was the Old Norse name for Canute's corps of housecarles, we have here contemporary mention of a Swede who served in the guard. Another stone from the same province records the fact that Ali who raised it "collected tribute for Canute in England." Housecarles were sometimes employed as tax collectors, and it seems probable that Ali, too, was a member of the great corps. It is likely that housecarles are also alluded to in the following Scanian inscription:

Sweyn and Thurgot raised this monument in memory of Manna and Sweyn. God help their souls well. But they lie buried in London.

 

The sagas are evidently correct in stating that the force of housecarles "had been chosen from many lands, though chiefly from those of the Danish [Old Norse] tongue. "

 

So long had the wealth of England been regarded as legitimate plunder, that the Scandinavian pirates found it difficult to realise that raids in South Britain were things of the past. They now had to reckon, not merely with a sluggish and disorganised militia, but with a strong force of professional warriors in the service and pay of a capable and determined king. In the year 1018, says the German chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg, the crews of thirty viking ships have been slain in England, thanks be to God, by the son of Sweyn, the king of the English; and he, who earlier with his father brought invasion and long-continued destruction upon the land, is now its sole defender..

 

This seems to have been the first and last attempt at piracy in England during the reign of Canute. So far as his dominions extended, viking practices were outlawed. The check that the movement received in 1018 was the beginning of a rapid decline in its strength, and before the close of Canute's reign, the profession of the sea-king was practically destroyed.

 

The Welsh, too, seem to have found it hard to repress their old habits of raiding the English frontier. It was probably this fact that induced Canute to establish so many earldoms in the South­west, particularly in the Severn Valley. A few years after the signal defeat of the viking fleet, apparently in 1022, Eglaf, one of the earls on the Welsh border, harried the lands of South-western Wales. As the sources nowhere intimate that Canute ever planned to conquer Wales, and as this was evidently the year of Canute's absence in the Baltic lands, the conclusion must be that this expedition was of a punitive character. The Angles and Saxons were soon to learn that the new regime meant a security for the property as well as the persons of loyal and peaceful citizens, such as they had not enjoyed for more than a generation.