Why doesn't he end up on the throne? Is this a symptom of his age, or is this a symptom of a lack of clarity around his position as heir, or perhaps just the ambition of, in particular, Harold Godwinson at that stage?

I suspect it could be a combination of all three.

There are yet to be firm succession rules in this period, so a degree of lack of clarity is normal, and it must be remembered that in 1016, Cnut would become King of England by defeating everyone else.

So very recently, might has made right in England, and of course, it would end up doing so in 1066 again, as we all know.

So there is that sense that while rules of succession are-- exist or while conventions, rules is probably too strong, there are conventions, uh, and there are claims that are stronger than others.

These aren't in themselves ironclad.

There isn't a kind of a legal edifice as firm as there would be in the later Middle Ages.

So, so how, I mean, how does he go about getting tied up in some of this resistance to, to William?

Professor Levi Roach.

And in the end, we end up with kind of a Harold as the power behind the throne, and Edward, to my mind, pretty much put in his place as a monarch.

As we saw at the start, Cnut is often presented, erroneously, as an egotist, a man who believed he could actually turn back the tide.

Cnut and the tides is one of those kind of great set pieces.

It's all the more a pity.

It's a bit like Alfred burning the cakes in that it's only recorded a couple of centuries later.

So we don't really have any reason to believe it's true, but it's one of those anecdotes that is meant to sum up the essence of a ruler who's being seen as being a foundational figure.

It's a statement of actually saying, no, I'm not, you know, don't put me on too much of a pedestal.

I'm not God.

It is the absolute zenith of Norse glory, the pinnacle of the Viking Age, with Cnut's most prosperous, populous kingdom, England, seemingly secure as the centerpiece of the Scandinavian universe.