Ah! But King Edwin did things legally, by renegotiating the Treaty of Fernandescourt instead of simply tearing up his agreements.
More importantly, that isn't what he's best known for.
King Augustus the Strong of Poland-Lithuania comes to mind there. He got the epithet purely for his physical strength, and he wasn't a particularly good king.
I think the prevailing historical narrative is determined less by the character of who won and who lost, and more by the character of who's writing, their political views, and the commonly accepted zeitgeist of their time. We get almost fawning biographies of people like Lee because for the past 150 years, it has been in fashion to paper over the actual causes of the ACW and focus on the "brother against brother" aspect, rather than the "struggle to free millions of human beings from an inhumanly cruel system of bondage" element, for the sake of creating a political narrative amenable to political elites in the north and the south. Napoleon comes in for praise because despite his faults, his opponents were arguably worse and he did spread the ideals of the revolution through Europe (which is why inveterate reactionaries like Tolstoy also hated him).
We can even see this process in motion with the Crusades which had been formerly characterised positively by a very eurocentric narrative of Whig history (in the sense that the Crusades were both justified, and assisted in the progress of Western Civilisation). Nowadays, how positively you view the Crusades is pretty much inversely proportional to your support for cultural and religious tolerance, and your willingness to reject a purely eurocentric narrative of the period.