As far as I am aware:

1. King Knut was defintiely one of the better. His mal-reputation is primarily a nationalistic thingy because of his not being 'native' English (whatever that is).

2. The original, and full, form of the story is that his courtiers told him he was so powerful even the elements obeyed him, and he, wiser than they, proved that this was not the case, by setting his throne by the shoreline and commanding the tide not to wet his feet. But it did. One in the eye for the sycophants.

3. The story is almost definitely apocryphal, somewhat like Alfred and the cakes.

cheer

the sunshine warrior