Published by Sutton Publishing
This book sets out to demonstrate “King Harold’s “true status and achievements which have been overshadowed by the events of October 1066 and the bias imposed by the Norman victory”.
The book sets out in some detail the life and career of Harold and the Godwine family, the main characters involved and some of the reasons behind their actions. The book contains family trees for the Godwine family, King Harold and his descendants, the English Succession and King Harold and his Scandinavian connections. These family trees are rightly placed before the text to assist understanding as the story unfolds.
The book begins with details of the Godwine family as they emerge into recorded history with Harold’s grandfather, Wulfnoth Cild, a Sussex thegn. The life of Godwine, Harold’s father, is more fully discussed. In particular I found the events after the death of Cnut surrounding the return in 1036 of Edward and Alfred, the sons of King Æthelred and Emma of Normandy, clearly set out. Alfred was arrested by Godwine at Guildford who then handed him over to the new king, Harold Harefoot. The subsequent murder of Alfred took place at Ely in Cambridgeshire among lands under Harold Harefoot’s, not Godwine’s, influence. Godwine was clearly responsible for Alfred’s initial arrest and handing him over to Harold Harefoot, but he was not guilty of Alfred’s murder. It is interesting to note that despite all their later efforts to discredit the House of Godwine, both William of Jumieges and William of Poitiers identify Harold Harefoot as the man responsible for the murder of Alfred.
The question of whether William visited King Edward during the Godwine’s exile in 1051 to discuss the succession is explored in full detail. The author rightly points out that at that time there were at least three likely successors with far stronger claims than William. The first of these, Earl Ralph a “Frenchmen” and Edward’s nephew, held lands in Herefordshire and the East Midlands. He was living in England and had married an Englishwoman. Interestingly they had a son called Harold. Ralph’s reputation was not enhanced by his poor military showing with the fleet and his defeat by the Welsh outside Hereford in 1052. (Earl Ralph died in 1057.) The second, Walter, Count of the Vexin, also a “Frenchman”, was Ralph’s elder brother. Walter was not living in England and had no direct English connection. During William’s conquest of Maine in 1052 he imprisoned Walter who subsequently died in suspicious circumstances, allegedly by poison. (This event was hardly likely to endear William to Edward.) The strongest claim of all to the throne, and Edward’s preferred successor, was Aetheling Edward, “the Exile”, son of Edward’s half-brother, King Edmund Ironside the popular hero. William’s only tenuous connection was through his great aunt Queen Emma (Edward’s mother).
For Edward to appoint William would represent a major breach of tradition and would not have received much support from England. The thought that Edward nominated William because he provided refuge in Normandy in 1016 and then helped in Edward’s restoration is clearly misplaced. In fact refuge was provided by William’s father and grandfather, Duke Robert appears to have attempted to invade England on Edward’s behalf in 1033/1034 but abandoned the idea through adverse weather conditions and a preference to raid Brittany, and Edward and his brother Alfred’s failed invasion attempt in 1036 had to rely on support from outside Normandy.
Following the 1051 crisis, when the Godwine’s returned, Robert of Jumieges, Archbishop of Canterbury, fled to Normandy and to William in 1052. With him he took the hostages, Godwine’s son Wulfnoth and his grandson Hakon (Sweyn’s son). It was Archbishop Robert, who, trying to ensure William’s favour and assistance in restoring him to his archbishopric handed over to him the two Godwine hostages and invented the story of Edward nominating William as his successor; no doubt emphasising the need for a compliant Archbishop of Canterbury to anoint the king at his coronation. Robert of Jumieges left William with the impression that Edward had designated him his successor and that Godwine’s hostages were his guarantee. Such a designation was unlikely to have been made by Edward, but, most important of all, William believed he had, which shows something of his lack of understanding of England and his willingness to believe things at face value. However, it is noteworthy that the Bayeaux Tapestry omits Edward’s “promise” in 1051. Everyone in England knew that Aethling Edward and then his son Edgar were was the unchallengeable heir and only those in William’s closest circle knew of the pledge invented by Robert of Jumieges and William’s intention to claim the throne.
Whilst admitting that the evidence is largely coincidental, the author suggests that Harold played a part in the mission in 1056 to bring Aetheling Edward and his family from Hungary. The author cites as evidence the visit of Harold to Flanders in 1056, his known visit to Rome (which prove he was at least on the Continent), and the fact that there is no recorded reference to Harold between August 1056 and September 1057.
Some interesting questions are posed about Stigand. When the Papal legates visited England in 1062, why did they take no action against Stigand? Why did William retain the services of Stigand until 1070 despite William supposedly holding a papal commission to depose Stigand? Why did William allow Stigand to consecrate Remigius, Bishop of Dorchester in 1067? Presumably the answer to these questions is that Stigand was an able administrator and William considered it politically expedient to use him. This continued use no doubt frustrated Normans who wanted Stigand’s power and influence and so used every means to vilify him. The dedication of Harold’s church at Waltham on 3 May 1060 by Archbishop Cynesige of York rather than Stigand, and Harold’s coronation as king by Archbishop Ealdred of York, confirms that Harold was well aware of the cloud over Stigand, and was certainly not crowned by Stigand as mischievously and inaccurately portrayed in the Bayeaux Tapestry. It is William, not Harold, who deserves any criticism associated with Stigand’s status.
The author reminds us that writing one hundred and fifty years later, Gerald of Wales speaks of Harold devastating all Wales and erecting standing stones to commemorate the event (are Harold’s Stones, south of Trelleck in Gwent, survivors of this commemoration?) Interestingly, Gerald of Wales attributes the later Norman success in Wales to the defeat of the Welsh inflicted by Harold.
The book emphasises a point often overlooked that Tostig successfully ruled the north for ten years. The fact that he campaigned with his brother in 1063 in Wales suggested he was secure. The reason for the northern revolt was Tostig attempt to impose the same level of taxation in his earldom as pertained in the rest of England. It should be remembered that the increase in revenue would benefit both Tostig’s and the king’s coffers. Rebellion centered on Yorkshire and was led by minor thegns who were not surprisingly reluctant to give up their favourable tax breaks and disliked Tostig’s interference in local matters, including blood-feuds. Harold came to negotiate with the rebels but realised Tostig had lost support and his restoration would only be achieved through what would amount to a civil war, it was shades of 1051-52 again and the only benefactor would be William. It is also noteworthy that the Vita Eadwardi, despite its sympathy for Tostig, believed Harold when he swore an oath clearing him of inciting the Northumbrian revolt. This adds to the explanation that the “oath” in Normandy was sworn under duress and totally out of character.
There was no widespread opposition to Harold’s succession in 1066, a credit to his diplomatic skills and pragmatism, particularly in reassuring the Northumbrians that he was not going to restore Tostig to his former earldom and his marriage to Aldith sister of Earls Edwin and Morcar. Version “D” of the Chronicle refers to Harold as “our king” and there is no mention of any contested succession. The fact that new replacement coinage was issued with new designs and manufactured in forty-six mints is an indication of the widespread support for Harold.
Harold was married in the Danish manner to Edith Swan–Neck. This involved the two parties agreeing a marriage contract in the knowledge that should the needs of family or state require; either could repudiate it later without the need for a complex Church divorce. Although this arrangement was accepted by the laity, it was because of the absence of a church blessing on the marriage that clerical authors described Edith as Harold’s mistress. This sort of marriage was relatively common in the eleventh century amongst those of Scandinavian descent. Indeed, King Cnut and Aelfgifu had the same relationship and their offspring were considered legitimate by the laity. Harold and Edith had at least six children. Edith’s name “Swan Neck” was a later elaboration of the description “Fair” or “Beautiful”. Edith Swan–Neck was heiress in her own right to extensive lands in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Essex. Harold met her when he was Earl of East Anglia, and perhaps this was one of the reasons why he founded Waltham Abbey and was apparently buried there (while noting the intriguing claims of Bosham to that privilege). What happened to Edith after 1066, where did she go, did she return to her families’ lands since all her husbands’ family had been wiped out or had fled the country? By Harold’s church wife, Alditha, he had a son, young Harold who was born in Chester in 1067. It surely was this Harold who became the hermit of Chester who called himself “King” Harold?
The author reminds us that there may have been a naval battle between Harold and William in September. William’s invasion fleet was supposedly blown by westerly winds from Dives to St Valery Sur Somme in early September. Had it set sail for England and begun the invasion from Dives as originally intended? The fleet arrived unintentionally at St Valery and there were apparently losses from drowning. Harold withdrew his fleet from the south coast on the 8 September, and it sailed back to London after apparently loosing many men; due to drownings in bad weather? Version E of the Chronicle says Harold went out with a naval force against William and there is a reference in Domesday to Aethelric who went away to a naval battle against William. Such a battle would certainly explain William’s retreat to St Valery and the losses sustained on both sides. Less interesting but I suppose still plausible, was that both fleets had the ill-fortune to be affected by the same bad weather, if so, this shows an unlikely ignorance of seamanship and understanding of the effects of weather conditions in the English Channel. With the winter storms approaching, and the losses sustained by both fleets and the failure of the “invasion” perhaps Harold thought that another invasion would definitely not take place that year.
A fact which needs to be repeated, is that contrary to views often expressed, the fyrd were relatively well-equipped and trained and comprised both thegns and freemen who had been nominated by their communities. Harold called up the fyrd on four separate occasions in 1066 and Earls Morcar and Edwin were also able to summon an army capable of taking on the Norse and inflicting upon them heavy casualties at Gate Fulford in York. This is hardly a disorganised, ineffective rabble as so often portrayed.
The suggestion that Harold was tempted into a premature attack because he was so concerned about the ravaging of his lands in Sussex is questioned. The author argues Harold was aware of Norman tactics, had shown caution in his dealings with Gruffydd of Wales, and had been quite prepared to withdraw support from his brother Tostig when the national interest required. William could not afford to wait but Harold could, William’s line of retreat could be cut by the English fleet or bad weather, once he had exhausted the forage in the Hastings vicinity he couldn’t forage inland for supplies without loosing touch with his base, he had to attack Harold.
After Harold’s death, the lack of military and political direction exhibited by Aethling Edgar and the northern earls proved how Harold had been the obvious choice for king. Although it must be remembered that Edgar was able to organise the successful defence of the Thames bridges at Southwark in London and force William to cross the Thames at Wallingford in Oxfordshire.
The author correctly reminds the reader that William only controlled the southeast; in December 1067 there were many areas in open revolt, Dover in Kent, the Welsh borders, Northumbria and the southwest. In the winter of 1068 William deployed his entire army against Exeter in Devon and spent eighteen days besieging the town. His army sustained substantial losses proving the effectiveness of the “burgh” as a defensive position provided the defenders had an authoritative leader as they had in this case, Gytha, Harold’s mother. We are reminded that such was William’s methodology in dealing with the English that in 1070 the Pope expressed concern about the events in England, particularly the Harrying of the North, and had issued by the “Penitential Ordinance” placing a penance on all who had participated in the Conquest.
What happened to Harold’s offspring is discussed in some detail. Whilst the stories surrounding his sons are relatively well known some interesting information about his daughters is provided. His daughter Gytha married the Prince of Somlensk and her eldest son was known in the Norse world by her father’s name Harold. This Harold had a daughter called Ingibiorg who married Cnut Lavard of Denmark and they had a son who became King Valdemar I of Denmark from whom the current monarchies in both Denmark and Britain are ultimately descended. King Harold’s daughter Gunhild became a nun at Wilton in Wiltshire, and in August 1093, in her late thirties/early forties she was abducted by Alan, Earl of Richmond in Yorkshire, and when he died, she married the earl’s brother, Alan. She clearly retained her status; there is evidence of correspondence in 1093 with Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury, confirming her continued importance despite Norman vilification of the Godwine family.
The book is worthy of recommendation, it informs and stimulates other lines of interest that any good book should. It covers a period and subject we may think we know but it adds to our understanding. I say this in spite of quibbles about the author’s failure to mention matters such as Gyrth’s offer to lead the army against William at Hastings so that Harold could gather reinforcements, form a new larger field army and mobilise the fleet; his failure to mention the two Norman ships separated from the main fleet whose soldiers and sailors were killed by the inhabitants of Old Romney in Kent and on whom William later took his revenge; or his failure to mention the Norman knights cashiered by William for cutting off Harold’s “thigh”; the author’s shortcoming in making only an oblique reference to Malfosse; and the author’s failure to elaborate on matters of interest, such as, the burial of one of Harold’s infant, unbaptised, children, near St Dunstan’s tomb in Christ Church Canterbury in Kent (Is there any record or trace of this burial in Canterbury?); and his failure to ask questions such as, why did Tostig attempt to seek Earl Gyrth specifically to support him before Stamford Bridge?; and the author’s failure to ask what Leofwine did during the Stamford Bridge campaign when he was left in charge in the south.
Undoubtedly we can agree with the author’s conclusion “Harold was a remarkable man by any standards.”
June 21st, 2010
