Thank you for your detailed answer and comments.I wrote the comment off at a dash - I was being called to work in the garden - and my spelling and grammatical accuracy toward the end was approaching the appalling.
1. Thank you for your bibliography of early to recent scholarly comment on the problems of chronology in the ASC.My relatively skeptical bent was probably influenced by Dumville (Britons and Anglo Saxons in the Early Middle Ages, Chapter VIII The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the Chronology of Early Wessex.The Regnal List is a something a little different from the ASC though I have not myself ever sat down and tried to untangle them.Dummville is usually very good if on the skeptical side.)Dummville admits Cerdic may not have existed though in fairness he thinks he probably did.Even Geoffrey of Monmouth used the names of real historical (or at least in his day historiographical figures) in his fiction when he had them.For me the greatest advances recently - and here I admit there must have been antecedents though these have been bolsetered by textual analysis and archeology - have been a. That the Anglo Saxons probably did not come to Britain in significant numbers (Michael E. Jones: The end of Roman Britain).This comports with what happened in Gaul.There was never a huge ethnic wave of "Frankish" people inundating Gaul but during the fiscal and administrative disintigration of the Roman empire Frankish and Gothic generals controlling Germanic and non-Germanic forces were the only game in town.
2. The Southwest including Hampshire and perhaps as far east as Winchester remained non-Saxon in character for significantly longer than the ASC would suggest.I am not drifting into Arthurian myth here.We know next to nothing about the predecessors of Wessex except that they were probably not Saxon.
3. London and environs may not have been in the hands of Saxon leaders until a couple of decades before the arrival of Augustine.cf Kenneth Dark Civitas to Kingdom - Calchvynnyd.However this theory has also been developed over at least the last 100 years.
4. The recognition by many development of a powerful and early Saxon polity (subkingdom?) at Dorchester on Thames.I have seen somewhere (not at hand) that this settlement may date from Roman or at least very early sub Roman times and may have had significant if not controlling Anglian and even non Anglo Saxon elemnents.I think it was Dumville (I may have to check) who was suggesting that the Cerdicingas pedigree may have been enhanced by war leaders from this settlement (Ceawlin?), not always even in a very chronological way.The dynasties - to the extent there was much dynastic about them early on, were doubtless interrelated - Germanic dynasties loved the whole intermarriage even with your enemies bit- for example the Franks and Goths or Penda's sister and Cadwallon - but how or when is anyones guess.
5. And my personal favorite - though I am not sure what if any academic following it has earned - the Merovingian angles a. backwash of Saxon troops from the Lombard invasion about the time of major extension of "Saxon" control over southeast Britain in the 570's and 580's.Gildas will not have written about it.The Saxons were still a wild card and Sigibert, who was not as stable in his lordship over them as his half Ripurarian cousins may have encouraged Saxons returning from the debacle in Italy (It was a debacle for everyone) to keep going and settle in Britain.Hence the foundation of Essex, the destruction of whatever it was that was going on around London and St Albans and b) perhpas in answer to this it seems likely that Chilperic would have meddled in Britain with his own Saxons at Bayeux (who were about half Breton - Cerdic is a celtic name after all)Gregory does not mention Chilperics use of the Saxons (any more than he mentions any of Sigibert's or Theudebert's activities beyond the Rhine except as they concerned Redgund) but he does mention Fredegundas use of the Saxons at Bayeaux to stir up trouble with the Bretons a decade and a hald later so it is not improbable.(I am not also mentioning the marriage of King Aelthelbert to a Merovingian Pricness in the wake of the second wave of pagan Saxons to Britain). In fact it is improbable that Chilperic and Sigibert and Childebert and Charibert before them were not trying in some way to meddle in British politics as they did extensively in Italian and Spanish politics.I may not be right about the specific impact of Merovingian politics in the British Isles but it would be folly to think that it did not exist.
Regarding the Easter tables that is also my understanding.
I understand that you are quite right about new translations not necessarily being better (I am in the translation business Japanese to English myself.My latin needs to improve a little before I show it off to others in a translation though I occasionally make my own translations when I think there is a point on gensocmed.Not very often though.Too many people better at latin than I am.I only meant really that I presumed the editors of the new edition chose the new translation for good reason.On reflection that is what I should have said.
I also agree that the chronicles/regnal lists/genealogies are our best source - as I said to the other poster-and probably always will be though I remain hopeful that by surveying the surrounding histories and archeological evidence we can one day obtain a better understanding of them.
I agree that if the kingdom were to exist for any length of time that records would be made for taxation and milita levy purposes etc...The barbarian kingdoms took a while to organize to a level where accurate historiography occurred.The story of Gundoald in Frankia about that time shows how difficult it was even for expert chroniclers such as Gregory to keep track of the royal family (And Gregory really tried).There were few if any people of Gregory's caliber in Britain and Gildas either did not know or did not care enough about the intricacies of Saxon succession to write about them.We have king lists which we would expect the mistrel/recordkeeper of a warrior's hall (presuming that Scandinavian institution indeed ever properly applied to SW Britain) so the people would know who was eligible for kingship (presuming again that that rule of kingship held at that time)The trend of recent study suggests that prior to Ceawlin (and here I am leaving out the Dorchester settlement for the moment) not much existed in the way of political institutions among the west saxons.Where they controlled territory at all it was probably more as war bands or pirates.Honestly, the century following Ceawlin is pretty messy as well since the quality of Bede's sources is mixed.
I am writing this again with less time that I would like so I refer often to research and study without having cited who I am talking about (I would have to go back to the bookshelf and search ins ome cases).My apologies.
I enjoyed your post, learrned quite a few new things and it has been interesting discussing it with you.Have we corresponded on the gensoc newsgroup?