The overall impression gained from the Norman sources is that the details they contain are not completely satisfactory. The contemporary chronicles and the general situation in England would seem to offer no support to their accounts. However, something most compelling must surely have prompted such an ambitious scheme as William’s eventual invasion of England in 1066. William himself clearly believed that he had been designated as Edward’s successor, and therefore it is unlikely that the story is simply a later fabrication. The immense risk William took by invading England and the emphasis in the documents on his rightful succession to King Edward both suggest otherwise. The key to this mystery surely lies with Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, the man the Norman sources name as bearing Edward’s designation to William of Normandy and a central figure in the events of 1051–2. Archbishop Robert is unlikely to have brought word of Edward’s designation of William during early 1051, as has been seen, and the only other time he was present in Normandy was following Godwine’s return from exile in September 1052, when Robert himself was banished from England and fled overseas. This possibility has the advantage that it would reconcile with William of Poitiers’ statement that the archbishop brought Godwine’s hostages with him and handed them over to William. Archbishop Robert would have been in a position to do this in 1052, whereas he could not have done so during his previous visit in 1051. However, before this possibility can be considered more fully the restoration of the Godwine family must first be examined.12
This dramatic turn of events arose because Godwine and his family, like Osgod Clapa before them, were not prepared to accept their exile tamely. Indeed, they had deliberately selected their places of exile in Bruges and Dublin because of their suitability as springboards for a return. Both were within easy sailing distance of England, especially Bruges, and both had plenty of mercenaries readily available for hire. Earl Godwine probably set about recruiting Flemish mercenaries with the treasure he had taken with him and with the support of Count Baldwin, but he was also joined by supporters from England. The fact that the family returned with a ‘large fleet’ does suggest the recruitment of mercenary forces in addition to those who may have followed them into exile.13
Meanwhile, in Ireland Earl Harold carried out a similar task of recruiting mercenary forces to support a return to England. He had apparently been well received by King Diarmait of Leinster, who had a reputation for welcoming and helping exiles. A later Welsh text, when recording Diarmait’s death, describes him as ‘gentle towards pilgrims and strangers’, a description attributable to Welshmen who, like Harold, had found refuge at his court. Harold was able to persuade Diarmait to use his influence to assist him in recruiting men and ships, perhaps in return for some of the family treasure or possibly promises of improved trading concessions in important English ports like Bristol or Exeter. At this time, Diarmait gained direct control of Dublin and its mercenaries by expelling its Norse–Irish King Eachmargach and installing his own son, Murchad, as ruler. It is possible that Earl Harold may even have assisted him in this task, although the account of the conquest in the Irish Annals indicates a straightforward campaign to destroy Dublin’s hinterland prior to King Eachmargach’s flight. At the least, Harold’s visit appears to have fostered a sympathy with Diarmait which was to extend, after Harold’s death, to his young sons. It is also possible that the raid made on Earl Ralph’s earldom early in 1052 by Gruffydd of Wales was encouraged by Harold from his vantage point in Dublin, although it is more likely that this was a simple case of Gruffydd taking advantage of Ralph’s absence with the fleet.14
As preparations for the family’s return made progress in Bruges and Dublin, Godwine may have finally decided to remove a major obstacle to his acceptance back in England, namely his eldest son Swein. It was probably at about this time that he sent his son on pilgrimage to Jerusalem as a penitent for his all too many sins. (It has already been seen how Swein’s behaviour had caused him to be exiled, and how King Edward had accepted his return in 1050 only with great reluctance.) The Chronicle says Swein went there from Bruges and that he died on the return journey at Lycia near Constantinople on 29 September 1052. In this case, he must have set out during the family’s exile with the intention that when he returned his family would be restored and that he, Swein, might thereafter prove more acceptable as a penitent pilgrim.15
The various activities of Godwine and his sons did not go unnoticed by Edward, and he made his own preparations to oppose them. He gathered a fleet of forty ships at Sandwich under the command of Earls Ralph and Odda. This was the customary response to a threat from Flanders and it had proved sufficient to repulse German raiders in 1048 and Osgod Clapa a year later. However, the circumstances were now rather different. The professional fleet which had provided the backbone of defence then had been disbanded in 1050. Although the two commanders of the new fleet had gained from the Godwine family’s fall, and had an interest in preventing their return, there is no evidence they were experienced naval commanders, in contrast to the men of the Godwine family who had commanded ships in previous fleets. In addition, neither the German pirates nor Osgod Clapa had any wide base of support in England. The Godwine family, with its wide lands and influence, was a very different case. Although the Vita Eadwardi probably exaggerates support for Godwine, the contemporary Chronicle entries confirm that it was considerable. The men of Dover, whom Godwine had saved from Edward’s wrath in 1051, may have been prominent among his supporters.16
On 24 June 1052 Godwine, despite his by now advancing age, made a first sortie across the Channel from Bruges, to test the defences and perhaps to communicate with supporters and potential supporters. He landed undetected at Dungeness and proceeded to recruit seamen from nearby Hastings and the Kent ports to join his forces. News of this reached the royal fleet at Sandwich, and Ralph and Odda sailed to oppose him at sea while other forces moved against him on land. However, Godwine was warned, probably by local supporters, and he retreated to Pevensey in his native Sussex, where marshes shielded him to the landward, and he could continue his recruitment unhindered. A violent storm subsequently blew up, which appears to have forced the two earls to return to Sandwich, but which Godwine was able to use to cover his return to Bruges unscathed. He had tested the defences and found them weak, and had also made contact with his partisans in Kent and Sussex. King Edward had also noticed the unsatisfactory, to him at least, performance of the fleet, and ordered it to London where he dismissed the two earls and their crews. Perhaps the latter, if recruited from the Kent ports including Dover, had shown too much sympathy for their exiled earl. The king apparently intended to appoint replacements but seems to have had such difficulties, his previous fleet commanders after all had been Godwine and his sons, that the fleet was abandoned altogether. Godwine’s local contacts informed him of this development and he immediately seized his chance. He sailed from Bruges with his enlarged fleet, westwards to the Isle of Wight, and ravaged and collected tribute from the inhabitants for some time. It was probably during this period that Godwine sent word to Harold in Ireland to come and join him. He then proceeded to Portland and ravaged there also. These raiding actions against men of his own earldom seem odd in view of his earlier refusal to punish the men of Dover, but they were perhaps directed against those who had deserted him in 1051 or who refused to aid him now. King Edward, who now lacked a fleet, was unable to respond to these attacks coming as they did in areas most readily reached by sea.17
Meanwhile, Harold had received his father’s message to join him, and sailed from Ireland with his brother, Leofwine, and nine ships crewed by mercenaries. They entered the Severn, landed at Porlock and ravaged the area, probably as retribution against Earl Odda, in whose new earldom it now lay. A large force of locals gathered to oppose him but he defeated them, killing more than thirty thegns and others. This was the first military action of Harold’s career and a victory even if on a small scale. Thereafter, he gathered booty and rounded Land’s End to join his father
off the south coast, either at Portland or at the Isle of Wight.18
In spite of the exaggerations of the Vita Eadwardi, the activities of the family had until now amounted to little more than piracy similar to that of Osgod Clapa. However, their combined fleet now headed eastwards up the Channel towards the heartland of Godwine’s patrimony, and their journey became almost a triumphal progress as the family gathered supporters from the towns of the Sussex and Kent coasts. There was little raiding now, but rather a general rallying of support to Earl Godwine. Chronicle C speaks of them not doing ‘any great harm’, a curious statement in a text often seen as opposed to the family, while it is Chronicle E, supposedly favourable to them, which suggests that some force was used. Again, these variations in reporting probably result from local knowledge on the part of Chronicle E composed in nearby Canterbury.
King Edward, alarmed by this turn of events, sent inland for support to defend London against what was becoming a considerable force. At this point, he seems to have experienced difficulties recruiting support. A close reading of the Chronicle accounts reveals no reference to the northern earls Leofric and Siward. The unnamed earls recorded in Chronicle E appear to be Ralph and Odda, who had been with the fleet and therefore must be those mentioned as pursued to London. They would also seem to be those earls referred to as being with the king and his fifty ships in London. The absence of Leofric and Siward is perhaps confirmed by the reported difficulties Edward had in replacing Ralph and Odda as fleet commanders; in the absence of the Godwine family, only Siward and Leofric would have been able to fill these roles, had they been present. Their absence is notable given their importance in the kingdom, and in contrast to their obvious presence in 1051, when they played a central role in events. Why were they apparently withholding support which they had provided to the king in the previous year?19
An important factor was probably the apparently final and complete nature of the exile of Earl Godwine and all his family in 1051. The northern earls had probably expected some compromise to be reached, redefining Godwine’s position. When instead he and all his family were banished and deprived of all their lands, Leofric and Siward must have been disturbed. After the relative stability enjoyed by the three great earls for the previous twenty years, the sudden downfall of one of their number must have caused the others to look to their own security. If Edward could destroy the great Earl Godwine in this way, why not them too? The fact that the king appears to have assumed direct control of the bulk of Godwine’s earldom of Wessex and so substantially enhanced his own power made this possibility all the more likely. When Godwine returned, therefore, the northern earls apparently held themselves aloof.
Thus when Godwine sailed up the Thames with his fleet, the power of Edward to oppose him was severely weakened, limited in effect to his new appointees, Earls Ralph and Odda, and minor nobles. Godwine arrived at Southwark, his estate on the south bank of the Thames, on 14 September and there awaited the turn of the tide in order to pass London Bridge. During this period, he pressed his advantage by negotiating directly with the Londoners. In this he was successful, persuading most of them to support him, or at least not to oppose him. Then Godwine’s fleet moved past London Bridge on the incoming tide and the opposing forces again faced each other across the Thames, as they had the previous year. However, this time Edward’s forces were almost certainly weaker and perhaps less resolute; others besides the northern earls may have felt that the king had gone too far in 1051. Bishop Ealdred of Worcester’s actions in 1051, when he failed, apparently deliberately, to intercept Harold as he fled to Ireland, reveal his sympathy for the family. Indeed, he may have been passed over as a potential successor to Aelfric, Archbishop of York, in 1051 as a result of this failure. In the event, neither side was any more willing to start a civil war now than in the previous year and negotiations began with Bishop Stigand again the intermediary.
The negotiations resulted in a truce and a meeting of the council called for the next day. The tide of events was clearly also turning in Godwine’s favour, and those who had most encouraged his expulsion were themselves now in fear of his vengeance. Notable among these was Archbishop Robert, who read the writing on the wall and decided to flee without waiting for the council to meet. He therefore escaped from London accompanied by his fellow Norman bishops, Ulf and William. He probably took with him the hostages handed over by Godwine in 1051, Wulfnoth and Hakon, as surety for his safety. These may been given to him by Edward as a gesture to his close friend, or the archbishop may have been holding them for the king and have taken them without royal authority. This latter possibility may explain the deaths recorded by the Chronicle during Robert’s flight at the east gate of London – perhaps royal thegns were attempting to prevent this breach of royal trust. The Frenchmen from Herefordshire also fled, initially to the protection of their castles, but when their exile was confirmed they sought refuge in Scotland. This flight to Scotland surely confirms that the French castelans in Hereford were not part of William of Normandy’s supposed fifth column. If the latter case, they would surely have sought to return to Normandy rather than taking up risky mercenary employment in distant Scotland.
When the council finally met on 15 September, including, finally, Earls Leofric and Siward, part of its work had already been done and the rest was settled through the intermediacy of Bishop Stigand. Godwine cleared himself on oath of all charges against him and his family. In return, Edward had Godwine and all his family restored to their lands and positions. This restoration also included the return of Queen Edith to the royal bed and the ending of all divorce plans. One person may not have been included in this general restoration, although with no certainty, and that is Earl Swein. Only John of Worcester explicitly states this, perhaps under the influence of hindsight, but it makes sense. Swein had been a major cause of the crisis of 1051, and a major irritant to Edward even before then, and his return would be particularly problematic. As has been suggested, his pilgrimage to Jerusalem was probably a way of keeping him out of the way until the crisis had passed.
As well as restoring Godwine and his family, the council made judgements of outlawry on those now deemed responsible for the crisis. This could obviously not include the prime mover in the events, King Edward himself, but it could cover those ‘bad’ counsellors who had already fled and thereby made themselves easy scapegoats. Thus Archbishop Robert, Bishop Ulf of Dorchester and the Frenchmen of Herefordshire were all declared outlaws. Robert and Ulf had already fled and the latter were soon given safe conduct by Earl Leofric to flee north to Scotland. It is important to note that these actions were not simply a general reaction against Normans or Frenchmen. The Chronicle makes the point that not all Frenchmen were exiled but only those who had ‘promoted injustices’, passed unjust judgements, and ‘given bad counsel’, while John of Worcester specifies some of those who were not implicated. Thus many of the royal favourites, Norman and French, were left undisturbed and even Bishop William, who had fled with Archbishop Robert, was soon allowed to return and reclaim his bishopric. Although appointed through Archbishop Robert’s influence, he was not blamed for recent events.20
The other details of the settlement agreed in the council reflect a return to equilibrium rather than further upheaval. Earls Godwine and Harold had been restored, though perhaps with slightly reduced authority. Earl Aelfgar must have had to resign his earldom to Harold, indicating the agreement of Earl Leofric to the settlement. In 1053 Aelfgar was to succeed again to Harold’s East Anglian earldom, when the latter moved on to Wessex, and this succession may have been agreed as part of the terms at this council. Earls Ralph and Odda appear to have retained their earldoms. Ralph’s earldom appears to have consisted of parts of Swein’s former earldom, and the latter’s death later that year removed the possibility of his returning to reclaim them. The position of Odda is less clear; either he may have retained Somerset, which Swein had previously held and could not reclaim, or he may have retained his entire earldom unde
r Godwine. In the Church too equilibrium was restored with absent clerics Archbishop Robert and Bishop Ulf of Dorchester replaced by Stigand and Wulfwig respectively. Some have regarded Stigand’s appointment as a reward for his support of Godwine, but this seems unlikely as during the crisis period he played a neutral role as negotiator between the factions. The appointment may rather have been his reward from Edward for arranging a peaceful settlement.21
Harold Page 8