Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - Use By Latin and Anglo-Norman Historians

Use By Latin and Anglo-Norman Historians

The three main Anglo-Norman historians, John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon, each had a copy of the Chronicle, which they adapted for their own purposes. Simeon of Durham also had a copy of the Chronicle. Some later medieval historians also used the Chronicle, and others took their material from those who had used it, and so the Chronicle became "central to the mainstream of English historical tradition".

Henry of Huntingdon used a copy of the Chronicle that was very similar to . There is no evidence in his work of any of the entries in after 1121, so although his manuscript may have been actually been, it may also have been a copy—either one taken of prior to the entries he makes no use of, or a manuscript from which was copied, with the copying taking place prior to the date of the last annal he uses. Henry also made use of the manuscript.

The Waverley annals made use of a manuscript that was similar to, though it appears that it did not contain the entries focused on Peterborough. The manuscript of the chronicle translated by Geoffrey Gaimar's cannot be identified accurately, though according to historian Dorothy Whitelock it was "a rather better text than 'E' or 'F'". Gaimar implies that there was a copy at Winchester in his day (the middle of the 12th century); Whitelock suggests that there is evidence that a manuscript that has not survived to the present day was at Winchester in the mid-tenth century. If it survived to Gaimar's time that would explain why was not kept up to date, and why could be given to the monastery at Canterbury.

John of Worcester's Chronicon ex chronicis appears to have had a manuscript that was either or similar to it; he makes use of annals that do not appear in other versions, such as entries concerning Edward the Elder's campaigns and information about Winchester towards the end of the chronicle. His account is often similar to that of, though there is less attention paid to Margaret of Scotland, an identifying characteristic of . He had the Mercian register, which appears only in and ; and he includes material from annals 979–982 which only appears in . It is possible he had a manuscript that was an ancestor of . He also had sources which have not been identified, and some of his statements have no earlier surviving source.

A manuscript similar to was available to William of Malmesbury, though it is unlikely to have been as that manuscript is known to have still been in Peterborough after the time William was working, and he does not make use of any of the entries in that are specifically related to Peterborough. It is likely he had either the original from which was copied, or a copy of that original. He mentions that the chronicles do not give any information on the murder of Alfred Atheling, but since this is covered in both and it is apparent he had no access to those manuscripts. On occasion he appears to show some knowledge of but it is possible that his information was taken from John of Worcester's account. He also omits any reference to a battle fought by Cenwealh in 652; this battle is mentioned in, and, but not in . He does mention a battle fought by Cenwealh at Wirtgernesburg, which is not in any of the extant manuscripts, so it is possible he had a copy now lost.