"Arthurian religion" Topic

Arthurian / Post-Roman British armies always seem to be depicted with shields covered in Chi-Rho symbols, and when you look at what is available from LBMS, again they virtually all include a Chi-Rho. But I'm just re-reading Bernard Cornwells Warlord (Arthur) trilogy and in these books the British are largely pagan, with Christianity still being the new religion. Now I know these are not history, but what was the actual situation ? Where the British mainly Christian around 500AD ? Would the Chi-Rho be so dominant on shields, or would there be a wider mix of patterns ?

Mainly Christian certainly. The religion had been well established throughout the Roman Empire for nearly two centuries before the 6th C. Despite the romantic notions of many historical novelists (not just Cornwell) there are no signs of a celtic pagan revival.
Also no real evidence of what might have been on shields nor of the domination of the Chi-Rho. I would look to late Roman patters for inspiration with stars and geometric patterns equally likely as well as plain shields. I vaguely recall a reference to white-washed shields but cannot remember how reliable that was

Patrick died in the late 5th century after converting a large part of Ireland. His "letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus" who was a Romano-British warlord, asserts his authority as their Christian spiritual superior and in effect excommunicates their commander until he repents. (He had raided Ireland and enslaved a number of Patrick's converts.)

Arthurian Britain was likely almost entirely Christian. Cornwell is well known for his dislike of Christianity and especially priests in his writing.

The pagan Arthur is a very recent addition, ca C20 AD.

There are references to "Icy hued shields" presumably white washed. Late Roman patterns, geometries, animals, etc also provide alternatives to the Chi-Rho

The legend really represents the struggle between the new religion Christianity a d the old religions .

Yes, as they said earlier. The Britons were mostly Christian. I'm sure there were some pagan hold outs but nothing like what Cornwell implies. The western empire had been Christian since Constantine the Great with maybe the Pictish north being pagan… maybe.

It's also worth noting that the Saxons were primarily pagans, so the Chi Ro serves to highlight the difference between the Christian Britons and the Pagan Saxons.

If you remember Cornwell's trilogy Arthur was oppose by a strong "Christian" element led by the fanatical bishop. This represents one segment in a multi segment society. Cornwell is only presenting one interpretation and as others have stated here already it is biased I still liked the books

You would be better to check out other more historical sources One place to begin s with Bishop Germanus of Auxerre a Gaulish bishop who led an army in Britain

link

If you haven't done so already try to read some of the basic histories of the period Thee two links will start you off

link

link

Archaeological evidence for the period shows the constant presence of Churches. There was a marker found to "Drustans" who several historians feel may have morphed over the years into the character "Tristan". That marker is a Celtic cross. And some of the earliest stories about Arthur maintain that he carried a shield with the emblem of the Virgin, presumably the Virgin Mary. Its pretty obvious that late Roman and Post Roman Britain were dominated by Christianity, 20th Century Novels notwithstanding.

It's also worth mentioning that Cornwell was apparently adopted by what passes in the UK for extreme evangelical Christian parents. This has apparently led to issues with Christianity that have leaked into his Arthurian and Alfred the Great series especially.

If you read his bio page on Amazon you get just a slight hint of this- unfortunately I cannot remember the longer interview I read where he was a little more explicit. But I would take his depiction of Christian authority with a big grain of salt.

Rich

That the Britons are overwhelmingly Christians is a good argument against the idea that such as Cerdic are Celtic nobles with A/S support. Christianity is a huge differentiator between the Britons and the rulers of the A/S kingdoms. These are converted from the continent as they either won't adopt or the Britons will not preach Celtic Christianity.
When the Saxons do convert it brings on a power struggle to control what Christian observance means and that is split Brit v Saxon too.

There is little reason to assume the British were not Christian. When Gildas lists the failings of the British he does not mention paganism had it existed among them it would have been top of his list.

There was a problem with Pelagianism but that's an intra Christian dispute.

Its worth considering the role the British played in the evangalising of Ireland too.

Of course, in those days, commitment to the Christian religion was nominal and seen as a political expedient. If the leader decided his country needed to be Christian, he and all his poeple would be baptised. This did not mean that pagamn practices immediately ceased! Christianity was often combined with pagan proctices in a mixed style that would appear very strange to us in the 21st century.

I would not say it was nominal. Some of those kings took their religion pretty seriously…far more seriously than we take it today. As in any time in history, there are those who will use religion as a tool, but there are also the pious who will live and die by their faith, whichever one it might be.

There is plenty of evidence of the continuation of older beliefs and the continuing use of much older sacred sites throughout Britain.

Christianity absorbed many ideas and festivals of older religions and gave them different explanations (Easter & Xmas being but two) and rituals. Many of those festivals and rituals still exist today so it wouldn't feel that strange.

Pagan really only means what the country folk believe – it isn't a specific set of religious beliefs and Christianity was originally mainly an urban religion.

Be careful of the reference to Arthur carrying the image of the Virgin Mary on his shield. It is likely to be spurious. In the late fifth/early sixth centuries, when the historical Arthur supposedly flourished, the cult of Mary had barely got going in the Middle East, let alone Western Europe. But, yes, the post-Roman Romano-British were largely Christian. Their white/white-washed shields are mentioned in the early Welsh [i.e. British] poem Y Gododdin.

I don't think the fifth/sixth century date is accurate. Prayers to Mary have been dated back to 250-280 AD and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus spoke very highly of her in the second century and the Church officially affirmed her title as the Mother of God in the 4th century. I don't know if Arthur carried any image of the Virgin Mary, but we do know of images of Mary that did exist at that time.

Lewis gunner, I take your point – but if we are placing 'Arthur' around the end of the 5th century there is there not as strong a likelihood of a post/late Roman leader ('Cerdic')allying with non-Christians as mainland Roman generals did? Pagan 'foederati' had long been employed as soldiers by Romans.

The idea that Christianity was the defining ideology of the Britons in the 5th century is based on the very limited written evidence that we have – primarily Gildas's hyper religious tirade against his fellow countrymen. Yes – the higher echelons were no doubt Christian, but this does not mean that would not deal with 'pagans' Saxons if issues of politics/power dictated.

Thats interesting re Cornwells own views – I also find it interesting in TV terms how admittedly effectively D&D/ fighting fantasy shows like 'Merlin' kind of miss out entirely Christianity from the landscape they depict – maybe for PC reasons I don't know. Its rather like the way that all soap operas equally exist in a bubble where there is no sport, politics or current affairs, only who is sleeping or in a dispute with who etc.

Couple of things there. Gildas did not write a "hyper religious tirade against his fellow countrymen" far from it.

He wrote a political polemic against the leaders of his society and identified named individuals for detailed casigation. He felt they were leading the patrimony to destruction and if his language reflected Christian scholarship we cannot be suprised he was after all a churchman. His thrust though was political.

As for Christianity being a defining ideology for the British there is little reason to doubt it. Christianity provided an inclusive identity that seperated the cives from their pagan opponents and linked them to overseas Christian powers.

As Roy noted above the Saxons 'are converted from the continent as they either won't adopt or the Britons will not preach Celtic Christianity.'

Bede goes further and says that the British refusal to bring Christianity to the English results in God allowing them to lose their patrimony. Bede as an Angle knew that the Irish had brought Christianity to Northumbria and while he certainly had an agenda its not unreasonable to think he reflected his society's view of German British relations in the age of Arthur.

'extreme evangelical Christian parents.'

Yeah a closed sect called the Peculiar People. His dad used to beat him black & blue. In fairness to Cornwell his Grailquest series is more nuanced. There are a couple of twisted brutal sadist priests, but there is also an abbot who is a strongly positive, decent Christian in the 3rd book

Cornwell annoys the snot out of me. I've stopped reading him altogether, after Agincourt….

Cornwell, and a other authors of the period, like to include Druidism, but that religion was long dead by the time of Arthurian period.

It is interesting to note though that Arthur wasn't well thought of in the Lives of Saints. He is regularly portrayed as a villan in some of those stories. In fact, in one story he kills Huail, the brother of Gildas.

As for Cornwell, I liked his Arthur books and a couple of the Sharpes books, but I have little use for any other of his writings. The Arthur books are classics to me though.

Druidism as a wholistic, mainstream religion may have died out by the late 5th century, but aspects of pre-Christian religions are rife in modern Christianity. The recent Irish Catholic Easter Vigil, for example, included the lighting of a communal (Bealtaine) fire from which parishioners relight their own candles.

For historical fiction, the Patrick McCormack 'Albion' series reflects the mix of Christianity and traditional customs very well.

Most of Gildas is a complaint against the Britons whose failure according to Gildas, has always been their wavering faith. The 'historical' sections and the direct political complaints are only 30% of the total work. 73 chapters take the form of a sermon, yes, preached against the failings of the political elites of the time, but essentially religious in content and context.

My point on Cerdic is that if he is British then one would expect him to be a Christian. Conversion seems to have worked through a king becoming a convert and then his people following suit. I am then puzzled as to why it should take three generations for that to happen in Wessex. Of course there could be explanations, but why should the Ouse of Cerdic not use its British connections to gain an advantage by bridging the two cultures if he was really a British leader who had Saxon mercenaries.
I think it is more likely that Cerdic got his name from a dynastic marriage but was paternally a Saxon.
What Gildas shows us is how deeply thought was penetrated by Christian ideas amongst the Britons, he explains the world in terms of sin.

Gildas does denounce British 'faithlessness' but he is talking about their attitude to what he sees as legitimate authority. He is not talking about their lack of religious faith. For Gildas legitimate authority is the Romans, God and the Church and interestingly the Badon generation of which he says " kings, public and private persons, priests and churchmen kept to their own stations". In his own day they were not doing so and he thought it dangerous. In acting this way they 'sin' but its a political issue.

I like Roy's theory of a dynastic marriage Cerdic but I think it works better with a British father and a German mother.

If Cerdic has a British father and a German mother.
He can now contend for his grandfathers patrimony and rally family support. The law and politics are no longer obstacles to his rise to kingship as would be the case if he sought to claim through his mother.

If the succession has to be resolved by force Cerdic might also expect support from his mothers kin who after all presumably felt they were making and advantageous marriage. Also they are fierce Germans who do fighting.

If fighting takes place Cerdic can, once successful, reward both sides of his kin with the assets of his defeated and dead or exiled paternal opponents. His maternal kin are now wedded to the continued success of Cerdic's line.

So Cerdic now rules a Celtic kingdom as a Celtic dynast but his German kin are a significant element of his support and have been integrated into the kingdom. Accordingly his son also has a Celtic name and so does his grandson. Later kings significantly do not.

The later Chroniclers dutifully record Cerdic as founder of Wessex and the Celtic names of his two immediate successors. They don't say much more either because the dynasty is now German and the Welsh are out of favour or because the record has been mostly forgotten apart from names.

It sort of works as a theory not that we will ever know.

Even then though Cerdic should have been a Christian, its a very interesting puzzle and has me reaching for my copy of The Early Wars of Wessex.

Mention of Cerdic immediately makes all us Alfred Duggan fans think of his interpretation in his novel Conscience of the King, link, highly recommended.

Incidentally, I believe it was Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe who rendered the name as Cedric, and thus gave it its modern form.

I like your theory Oh ---. My first point was based around the notion of Christians making alliances with pagans,for military/political reasons, i.e. fighting other Christians. Your Cerdic Saxon marriage idea would fit with this. I suppose his wife may have had to become a Christian but not her family. Several generations later, the 'Saxon' kingdoms including Wessex expand and become powerful. The influence of Rome now seems much less relevant, and Wessex asserts its Saxon, pagan identity to compete with Kent and East Anglia, and to demarcate it culturally from its Christian rivals to the West…

Thanks Hobhood. The way I see it is that Cerdic's maternal kin are now integrated into the kingdom but very much tied to the royal house proper. Could they be the Dorchester Saxons of archeology?

As long as Cerdic's descendents keep a firm grip all is well and looking at the kinglist (for what its worth) it seems they did for some time. Then there is some turbulence at the top.

Ultimatley we end up with Ine who is not a Celt and whose laws will ensure the destruction of Celtic power and social standing in the kingdom.

But Ine in my view must have been a descendent of Cerdic's maternal kin and that descent must have been an important part of Ine's legitimation. Otherwise its hard to see why Cerdic would have been retrospectively equipped with a Woden born pedigree borrowed from the Bernician dynasty of Northumbria. Such a pedigree would only impress other Germans, not Celts, and from this we might consider that Ine's rise was reliant on German power. For a maternal claim would be outside of Celtic law and unlikely to attract support from that quarter.

Its all speculation of course.

The Christian question is interesting certainly Cerdic 'should' have been one. His mother not so, although conversion is not out of the question. Would his mother's people have converted if land and status were on offer, we cannot know, but its not impossible.

Then again the only reason we might think Cerdic was not a Christian is because of his ficticious Woden pedigree and his one size fits all arrival from the sea both written a long time later.

I like your point about the power dynamics of what we can now call England with the pagans now in the ascendent. Those whose ancestors had thought Christianity a price worth paying for land and status might well have thought reverting to their ancestral beliefs a reasonable exchange in return for for even more status and land.

It would make all this rather more plausible if there was some corroboration in Gildas, the AS Chronicle or whatever.

Yes all true Roy, but Gildas did not cover everything, he doesn't even tell us the names of the commanders at Badon and the ASC is not reliable for this period.

I'm just kicking around ideas on why Cerdic was retained as a prestigious ancestor.

And no problem with that, but then you have explained away the contrary evidence that Cerdic arrives by sea at Cerdic's Ore and his Wotan genealogy. So what is therein the evidence to suggest that Cerdic could be Celtic or half Celtic . You could try the first WSaxon bishopric being at Dorchester on Thames which indicates that the power centre is there not in S Hampshire here one would expect a sea borne king to have a seat?

Just have a look and see what you can find.
Roy

Cerdic's name may be commemorated in the name of the village of Chearsley, Buckinghamshire, which appears in the Domesday Book (1086) as Cerdeslai. This is assumed to be the place mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as Cerdicesleah, where King Cerdic and his son Cynric defeated the Britons in 527.
[edit]

That's from Wikipedia. I think it is worth looking at the ASCs chronology of battles and where they are to get a handle on where Cerdic is operating. It certainly is strange to be campaigning in Buckinghamshire if he has arrive don the coast. However, if you are based on the upper Thames then it makes sense. The thory that Cerdic is some sort of Roman officer from the Saxon shore makes sense of the coastal connection.
Of course both poles of operation could be fitted into a Celtic Certic thory. I particularly like the Vortigern's daughter was his mother thought.
It occurs to me that class is fairly igd in these times. If you are a top person you know that you are and you relate to other top people across language and religious barriers. More easily than you relate downwards as you are trying to keep a distance between you and your people that makes you that bit more special.
Roy

I'll do some digging.

Accepting that we do not have much to work with the following occurs to me.

Cerdic's name is Celtic, as are those of his direct successors. Its hard to see why a German would bear a Celtic name and even harder to rationalise him giving his children Celtic names. Some have also argued that Cerdic's father as named in the borrowed genealogy also has a Celtic name. On balance the evidence we have does not support Cerdic being a German.

Had Cerdic been half German he might have also had a German name. The Northumbrian king Aldfrith circa 685 had an Irish mother and was known to the Irish as Flann Fina Mac Ossu. If Cerdic ever had a German name it isn't important to the legitimation of the Wessex dynasty and so is forgotten.

It is clear though that Cerdic was important in the Wessex story and that implies that the Germans were important to Cerdic although not important enough to take over the polity.

When the takeover does occur the incoming kings are keen to demonstrate their kinship to Cerdic and the legitimacy of their rule. Such kinship is more likely to have been through Cerdic's maternal line and that implies Cerdic had a German mother likely from the Dorchester Saxons.

Otherwise it is difficult to see why Cerdic and sons would survive in the king list and the ASC. Plenty of perfectly respectable English dynasties have origin myths along the lines of "We fought the Welsh and beat them and set up the kingdom." Wessex does not and there must be a reason for that. A half Celtic half German Cerdic is a plausible explanation for the Wessex story.

I'm still pondering Roy's other though provoking points.

Good stuff OB.
Doesn't the war against Natanleod count as a we came we saw we bashed the Brits. Just what is Natanleod's kingdom?
What is the place of Stuf and Wihtgar all this? They appear in a traditional style pairing, they occupy Wight ans supposedly the mouth of the Solent. That sort of jars with the idea that Cerdic arrives by sea at Netley, though I cannot remember who is there first. I tend o believe in tha Jutes because later on there is trouble with converting them to Christianity and that is believable because they are offshore on their own island and not in relation to the Britons.
I just wonder if we believed in Cerdic as either a Midland Briton or the rector of the Regni then could he have settled the Jutes in Wight as mercenaries, or perhaps they are just striking out on their own account.

Some have suggested that it is Cerdic that is defeated at Badon. If that were true then wouldn't Gildas give us a clue thet this is a civil war? Gildas certainly lays it on thick about Britons who fight each other.My recollection is that Gildas has Badon as against the pagans.
Nothing that is clear proof one way or another and I still think that the best way to proceed is to construct a theory and then test it against the surrounding events and say do they fit in with the logic of the theory..
Roy

Thanks Roy.

Gidlow and others don't reckon Natanleod was a person they do think it was a district perhaps rationalised in later stories (ASC)on the basis of its English name. The intriguing bit for me is the British 'very noble man' they killed.

Clearly the compilers of the ASC thought this was part of the ascent of Wessex how they don't know. We should come back to Stuf and Whitgar.

Jutes are somewhere in the story too in my view but I suspect they may have been victims of Cerdic in the longer run.

I'm glad to see you suggest Cerdic as a Rector of the Regni but what chance he was an Atrebate or a Belgae? I suspect your earlier suggestion that we look at where Cerdic's battles were fought will help illuminate the issue.

More soon I've dined rather well tonight.

link
Those troublesome Jutes

That's a helpful link Roy. Looking at Cerdic's early career it somehow seemed very familiar to me.

A possible reading of the ASC entries for Cerdic goes like this.

We can assume that Cerdic begins his political and military career near enough to his key allies the Saxons of Dorchester on Thames. Located within 30 miles of the important towns of Calleva (Silchester) and Corinium (Cirencester). This is on the northern borders of the civates of the Atrebates. Cerdic then was a tigernos of the Atrebates and this part of the patrimony may have been controlled by his family for generations.

To the north lay the territories of the Dubonni, to the north east the Catuvellauni, to the south west the civates of the Regni, and to south that of the Belgae.

Cunliffe takes the view that the population of the three civates, of the Atrebates, the Belgae and Regni shared a close cultural relationship and had been a single territory prior to the Roman imposed partition. That division was motivated by the need to reward their client king Togidubnus and to improve political control.

The first action in the ASC account of Cerdic's story involves the slaying at Portsmouth of 'a young Briton of very high rank' this took place either in the civates of Regni or Belgae depending on how you see the border.

It looks like a political murder of a rival carried out by Germans on Cerdic's behalf. I say Germans because our source is the ASC.

Seven years later Cerdic is recorded as killing a British king Natanleod in battle and five thousand of his men. Scholars reject this considering both Natanleod and the battle as a later invention.

We can say though that the oral accounts that informed the ASC recalled that Cerdic had been involved in fighting in the civates of the Belgae and a "British king" was killed.

A discreet territory running from Netley to Charford is emphasised and the inference is this now falls under Cerdic's influence as oppossed to the now deceased 'British king'.

Next we read "they fought with the Britons at a place now called Charford." Charford is on or near the border between the Arebates and the Catuvellauni. While no victory is recorded Cerdic's fight here was obviously significant as its from this time that the Saxons of Dorchester accept Cerdic's rule.

Who their previous ruler had been is unknown but its likely to have been the king of the Atrebates as their name Gewissae implies. It maybe that this indicates that Cerdic has now assumed that role. Certainly it is hard to think of another explanation for the ASC "From that day have reigned the children of the West-Saxon kings." as its much too early to speak of Wessex.

So far in his career Cerdic has eliminated two high status aristocrats (rivals?) from within the old pre Roman boundaries of the polity of the Atrebates , he has secured the open allegiance of the Gewissae and either subdued the remaining opposition to his rule from within the civitates or, depending where you think the border was, raided into the neighbouring Cavevellauni. The latter of course is the tradional first action of a newly made Celtic king. Either way Cerdic is now the unchallenged overlord of the Atrebates.

This is precisely the sort of early career that we would expect of a Celtic aristocratic would be king and variants of it would be continuously recorded in Ireland, Scotland or Wales for as long as an independent Celtic polity existed.

As an explanation it does no violence to scanty text its based on. Not that that means its right of course.

Now I need to consider Gildas.

Earlier in this thread Roy suggested looking at Gildas who was a contemporary of Cerdic and lived a couple of civitates away from the Atrebates.

There is no mention of Cerdic amongst the kings Gildas castigates. There is however the following in the part of DEB addressed to the clergy.

Gildas 92 verse 3
"It is a clear sign that a man is no lawful shepherd or even middling Christian if he denies or rejects pronouncement that originate not so much from me(and I am very worthless) as from the old and new testaments. One of us is right to say: "We greatly desire that the enemies of the Church be our enemies also, with no kind of alliance, and that her friends and protectors be not only our allies but our fathers and masters too."

A lawful shepherd in Gildas's eyes might be a cleric or a king, for both have direct responsibility for their ‘flock'. The target of reproach here considers himself a Christian and a protector of the Church but he has allied himself with the enemies of the Church and so can neither be a lawful shepherd of his people, a protector of the Church or even a "middling Christian". The enemies of the Church are pagan Saxons who are not British as "our fathers and masters", the clerics and kings of the civates clearly are.

There is no reason for us to think that a British cleric was engaged in any sort of alliance with the pagan Saxons and so the subject of Gildas's reproach must be a king. Of the neighbouring Kings in Gildas's part of the world, it is thought he wrote in the civates of the Durotriges, only one offers himself as a likely candidate. That king is Cerdic of the Atrebates whose German connections had helped him gain power and who would be remembered as the founder of Wessex.

The foregoing begs the obvious question why did Gildas not include Cerdic in the part of his epistle aimed at kings. Perhaps the answer is that Cerdic has rejected Gildas's previous advice "It is a clear sign that a man is no lawful shepherd or even middling Christian if he denies or rejects pronouncement that originate not so much from me(and I am very worthless) as from the old and new testaments."

Cerdic is therefore "no lawful shepherd or even middling Christian" as far as Gildas is concerned. Cerdic's kingship and even his professed Christianity are now void and he does not belong with the errant kings who Gildas still hopes to change. To make the point Gildas excludes him from the kings and relegates him to one of the problems the Church must deal with.

In its way it quite threatening as Gildas is seeking to rally the clergy of Britannia to his point of view.

As ever its just a reading of the evidence we have. So far though we have not hit a wall.

I have always thought that it is the clerics who are behind the flight of British populations West and to Brittany because they hate the pagan Saxons so.
If you are a cleric you have a network that crosses the Prrovince and is not limited by whichever cicadas you are in. If you are a king (is that really the best word) then you are limited by the unit over which you have power.
We see Cerdic because of what he became and what his descendants became. The A/S chronicle is going to make much of him because he is the ancestor of their rulers.In Gildas time he may just have looked like a small beer turncoat and so not worthy of mention?

Also there was no mileage in claiming Welsh decsent then. They were 'other', the enemy and losers, being discriminated against in law. So the name might have been the only relic.

What about Cerdic being a pure Celt and the A/S marriage being his son's as Cerdic puts together an alliance with the Gewisse?
Roy

Cleric is such a misleading term for us today. Its always worth remembering St Germanus was a soldier and an officer before he became a cleric. The Allelua Victory probably owed more to superior tactics than divine intervention.

Bishops also seem to have wielded significant power in Roman times. In many ways the clerical establishment replaces the imperial civil service as a career path.

In post Roman Britain the senior clerics do seem to be drawn from the aristocracy of their own area. Gildas probably was too although he does bang on about the bluring of the lines between spiritual and earthly power.

Provincial clerical power would have been formidable. I'm reminded of Heather's view of Christianity as an enabling device for dynasts to rob other non Christian dynasts or peoples. In this case though I think, if we accept the Cerdic of this thread, Cerdic was too useful holding the south eastern flank of the cives for Gildas to get his way.

I completely agree that we see Cerdic through the eyes of his sucessful descendents. If he did achieve the things discussed above though he would, for the time and place, have been very strong beer indeed. Those successes though would not have resounded to the glory of Wessex rather the bards of the Atrebates would have sung about them.

The ASC is about celebrating German sucess, and promoting Wessex's ability and right to compete in England, as you say there was no mileage in being Welsh in that context.

By Ine's time Cerdic's ethnicity would need to be forgotten, if it was still remembered, it could be as you say a relic. This might account for Bede being rather sniffy about the whole birth of Wessex thing.

I think if it had been Cynric who put together the package then he would have been credited by the ASC. As it is Cerdic seems to have been the founder in the oral tradition and that's what must of informed the chroniclers.

I take your point about Cynric and founding, though in the psychology of the time it mattered that your fathers were a something. Hence Theoden's death speech in LoTR where he talks about being able to stand with his mighty forefathers and feel no shame.
I doubt that the compilers of the ASC were actually dealing with a problem of 'This guy's a Briton, how do we cover that up?' because that would have been done long before . At whatever point Wessex becomes a substantive political element with a majority German upper class the ruler is going to have to be and , in perception, always been one of them.

An interesting parallel is the nation building activities of Theoderic the Great who carefully provides his ruling house with a history in which they had always been ruled by the Amals, even though the uniting of the Eastern Goths that were within the Empire was only undertaken by him.

Yes I think by the time they were writing the ASC the 'real' Cerdic was well below the radar. Presumably the revision occured in Ine's time if not before. For Ine to get to the throne the internal balance of power must have swung pretty far in favour of the Germans.

Of course as Germans claim to royal status through maternal descent was not so much a problem for them. That said Cerdic's German kin cannot have been Woden born otherwise there would have been no need to borrow the Bernicean pedigree.

I can't help thinking Bede had them rumbled though he wasn't very happy with what the did to the Jutes iirc.

It makes good sense for a later German ruler to claim clear descent several generations back. Also we don't know the succession custom involved. These Germanic kingdoms don't always go via father to son, but rather to the next capable male relative who can promise firm rule is then acclaimed by the army. If the Gewisse largely provide the army then, in the case of a weak claimant from the 'legit' line a relative from the Gewisse line old easily take power, be accepted and Liam 'descent'.
Roy