This post is adapted from my book, King Alfred: A Man on the Move, available from Amazon.
It would be great if you could support this project by purchasing a copy.
The writings of a man called Æthelweard tell us that that Alfred besieged London in 886, and another early writer called Henry of Huntingdon suggested that an opportunity had arisen because the Viking presence had been weakened as a result of some having left to join Viking forces on the continent. Although The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and Asser record Alfred in London at this time, neither source mentions that Alfred had taken London by force. The Chronicles also tell us that in the same year Alfred entrusted London to his son-in-law and ruler of Mercia, Æthelred. London had been a Mercian city and there may have been some resentment after it had been taken over by Wessex, with this being defused by Alfred handing it over to Mercian Æthelred in order to control on behalf of both of them. We know from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that London had been under Viking occupation in 871 when they had moved there from Reading. However, the Chronicles also tell us that these Vikings left for Northumbria in 872, and it was perhaps this that subsequently allowed Alfred to start to extend his power to London. Indeed, there is evidence from coins suggesting that London may have been under Alfred’s protection as early as the late 870s.
But what was this London that Alfred was gaining control over? It has been suggested that after Roman control ended the population left the fortified area at the current site of the City of London and went to a place called Lundenwic, approximately 1 mile to the west, perhaps because this provided easier access to a ford at Westminster. The wic element of Lundenwic persists in the modern name Aldwych. It appears that people later moved back to re-use the earlier Roman fortifications (as also appears to have happened at Winchester), and it seems plausible that this move had been triggered by Viking attacks. So, when Alfred took control of London it could well have comprised what is now the City of London and the area around Aldwych, with the two settlements connected by what we now call Fleet Street.
It is thought that Alfred restored London after 868 and it has been suggested that the site of the restored Alfredian burgh extended along the north bank of the Thames from near Queenhithe in the west to near Billingsgate in the east, and extending inland by about 300m. It is interesting to note that this area only occupied a small part of the Roman walled area, but in Alfred’s time much space might have been taken up by crops and livestock. Much of this stretch along the river can be walked and for me the most interesting location is Queenhithe, where there are some information boards and one can look out over what would have been a dock in Alfred’s time. Queenhithe is named after Matilda, the wife of King Henry I, but the location had previously been called Æthelred’s Hithe, named after king Alfred’s son-in-law.
It may be that the administrative centre of London at Alfred’s time was somewhere near Aldermanbury. If this is the case then it seems likely that Alfred would have been there at some point. However, this is based on the presence of the Old English burh in the place name, and it is not known whether this was acquired after the time of King Alfred.
Aldermanbury is immediately to the north-west of the current Guildhall, with Wood Street running north-south through the middle of it. It is possible, based on the 13th century Matthew Paris quoting an 11th century source, that there had been a saxon royal palace at Aldermanbury near the site of the former church of St Alban on Wood Street. This does not allow us to confirm that it was there when Alfred was alive, but there must have been at least one royal residence and there are few other potential locations within the circuit of London’s walls (another being the site of the former Roman praetorium, the remains of which are largely under Cannon Street station). This church was a victim of the 1940 Blitz and all that remained, with the exception of the tower, was demolished in the 1950s. The tower, now a private residence, still stands in splendid isolation in the middle of Wood Street. if it was still standing, the church would extend eastwards into where the police station is located. Also perhaps of significance is that this was in a particularly important part of Roman London, being within the outline of the Roman fort, and also very close to the Roman amphitheatre. You may not wish to miss the remains of the amphitheatre, which are located beneath the Guildhall Art Gallery. It is also possible that the walls of the Roman fort were still intact, and this square area at the north-east aspect of the walled city might itself have served as a base (more details on this, with a map, in this post). There is some evidence that there may have been royal palaces at Brentford and Chelsea in the 8th century, but whether these were still in service at the time of King Alfred is not known.
A predecessor to St Paul’s would have been present at or near the site of today’s cathedral, as this had been founded in 604. All Hallows by the Tower shows evidence of Saxon work, so it is possible that a church was also standing there in Alfred’s time.
Southwark is mentioned in the Burghal Hidage, issued in the reign of Edward the Elder (Alfred’s son) after Alfred’s death, so it seems likely that there was a burgh in place here on the south side of the Thames before Alfred died. Indeed, it is possible that a London Bridge, as a replacement or a repair of the earlier Roman structure, may have been built, perhaps during Alfred’s lifetime, in order to connect the two burghs on either side of the river and to act as a defence against Vikings trying to proceed upstream.