The next abbess was her daughter, S. Ermenilda. Her husband had been Wulphere, King of Mercia, who died in 675. She had been professed at Ely, and left to become the head of her mother's foundation at Sheppey. The date of her death is not known. She was succeeded, both at Sheppey and at Ely, by her daughter, S. Werburga. How long she ruled at Ely is not recorded. She was buried by her own desire at Hanbury, in Staffordshire. When the Danes reached Derbyshire in their incursions, this was deemed no longer a safe place, and her body was removed to Chester, where the cathedral was afterwards placed under the joint invocation of S. Werburga and S. Oswald.[2] The reason why it is suggested above that ten years may be taken as the limit of time to be assigned to the rules of S. Ermenilda and S. Werburga is that the author of her Life[3] says that her body was taken up "9 years after her decease, to translate it to a more eminent part" of Hanbury Church, by order of Ceolred, King of Mercia. As this king died at latest in 717, it would follow that S. Werburga must have died not later than 708. Probably in the Isle of Ely more special respect was paid to the festivals of these four sainted abbesses than elsewhere. But we find no churches dedicated to any of the four in the isle except those previously named as dedicated to S. Etheldreda, the cathedral, Histon, and a chapel at Swaffham Prior. Minster Church, in Kent, is dedicated to Saints Mary and Sexburga. In a tenth-century will of the widowed queen of Edmund I. we read: "I give to S. Peter's, and to S. AEtheldryth, and to S. Wihtburh, and to S. Sexburh, and to S. Eormenhild at Ely where my lord's body rests, the three lands which we both promised to God and His saint."[4] There were no doubt side-altars erected in honour of one or more of the four. At Wisbech, for instance, there was a "light" of S. Etheldreda, to which we find persons bequeathing small sums. Of the monastery of S. Etheldreda and that of Bishop Ethelwold, Professor Freeman writes that there is "no continuity between the two."[5] By this we must probably understand that he considered the original monastery absolutely at an end after its destruction by the Danes; and that the monastery founded in its place a century later was something quite new, that had no claim to be regarded as the continuation of the former one. But the history of the place during the interval was not an absolute blank.