This small church had probably first come to Harold’s notice when he received the estate of Waltham, where it stood, as a gift from King Edward, following the forfeiture of Athelstan, son of Tofi the Proud, perhaps in the late 1040s. Tofi’s church at Waltham contained a ‘Holy Cross’ in the form of a carving of the crucifixion with venerable and miraculous associations. Tofi and his wife had made gifts of land and wealth to this church in keeping with their status. When Harold took control of the church he adopted it as his own, motivated, it would appear, by genuine religious devotion. The later Vita Haroldi attributed Harold’s devotion to a miraculous cure from a paralysis which supposedly affected him after his Welsh campaign of 1063. This story is clearly confused because Harold rebuilt the church in 1060, three years before this. The later Waltham Chronicle reveals Harold’s devotion in considerable detail. It includes the story of how he visited there to pray before his last battle at Hastings. He was also later reputed to have used ‘Holy Cross’ as a battle cry at Hastings. It was at Waltham that Harold instituted the construction and decoration of a new and elaborate stone church, perhaps in emulation of King Edward’s Westminster. Unfortunately, few traces of Harold’s church remain in the current fabric of the building, most of which is of a later date. On the basis of available evidence, it appears to have been constructed to a design derived from existing English or German traditions. This seems to reflect the influence of Harold’s background and his wide travels in Imperial lands. Further archaeological investigation may reveal more details. Harold’s new building was consecrated to Christ and the Holy Cross at a ceremony held on 3 May 1060, the feast of the Finding of the True Cross, and attended by King Edward, Queen Edith and many others.32
Harold staffed his new foundation as a college of canons with a dean, Wulfwine, twelve canons, each of whom would be paid 40s a year, and a Lotharingian schoolmaster called Adelard. He would endow the canons with 13 estates of a total of over 70 hides in Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Berkshire, valued at £43 in total. He also lavished a great deal of treasure on the internal decoration and fittings of the church, including gold and silver church plate, church vestments made of cloth of gold and adorned with jewels, and a magnificent altar of gold and marble, supported by golden lions and decorated with paintings of the apostles. It has been considered that the account, admittedly late, of Harold’s gifts to Waltham contains some exaggeration of his generosity, but when compared with King Edward’s gifts to Westminster and given the relative wealth of the two men, this seems unlikely. Indeed, an inventory of Waltham’s possessions made at the time of the Dissolution in 1540 mentions two Anglo-Saxon Gospel books with ornate silver gilt covers which had earlier featured among Harold’s gifts.33
Naturally, Harold’s generosity made a significant impact on the canons of Waltham. As a result, they performed the final service of burying his body, and thereafter almost alone preserved his memory, despite Norman attempts to discredit or obliterate it. They remembered him as their second founder and greatest benefactor in a later twelfth-century account of their foundation, and subsequently compiled a life of Harold, though this latter was largely pious and legendary. Locally, Harold’s name also lived on in the Essex place-names, Harold’s Park at Nazeing and Harold’s Wood at Romford, both on former Waltham lands.34
In spite of the scarcity of the sources and their patchy nature, it has been possible to trace an outline of the way in which Harold built up his huge estates throughout England. The uses to which the wealth arising from this property was put have also been sketched. These ranged from creating a power base for his rise to prominance, through building up political support by gifts to laymen, to expressing devotion to God by gifts to the Church.
FIVE
EARL OF WESSEX
A noble earl who, all the time had loyally followed his lord’s commands with words and deeds, and neglected nothing that met the need of the people’s king.1
In 1053 Harold unexpectedly succeeded to the great earldom of Wessex and to those wide lands of his father discussed in the previous chapter, and he also became head of his large family. He did not succeed to the office of earl by hereditary right but rather as King Edward’s choice to replace his father. It was a natural choice since he would in any case have inherited the advantage of extensive family lands and contacts in Wessex from his father. As earl he could use these assets to help him perform his duties for the king more effectively. Most historians give insufficient emphasis to this change, assuming a continuity between father and son which is not entirely justified. Harold was a different man from his father, although he had generally followed his lead until now. He lacked his father’s long experience of administration and warfare; his own eight-year tenure of the East Anglian earldom could not compare with Godwine’s thirty-three years as Earl of Wessex under four different kings; his military experience largely consisted of small-scale raiding.
However, there were also differences which worked to Harold’s advantage. He was free of the stigma associated with his father’s implication in the death of Atheling Alfred, despite the attempt by later Norman writers to smear him with this. There are indications that Edward liked him personally, when he had disliked or even hated his father. Godwine’s dominance and interference in Edward’s reign had caused resentment, but the Chronicle refers to his sons as ‘the king’s favourites’. This cannot refer to the brutal Swein and most probably refers to Harold and Tosti, since Godwine’s other sons are rather shadowy figures. Indeed, Edward’s feelings for Harold are perhaps shown by his failure to demand hostages from Harold in 1051 and from the ease with which Harold succeeded his father. The latter action might have been made difficult had Edward been determined to destroy the entire family. It will be recalled that Harold had not supported his prodigal brother, Swein, to the extent that his father had. Indeed, in 1049 he had refused to support Swein’s return from exile when his father did so. It would seem that much of the tension and bitterness of the past, had now been swept away and Harold and Edward were able to start afresh.2
One major difficulty, in the form of Edward’s childless marriage to Edith, remained to be resolved. As already shown, this problem had proved a decisive element in the recent crisis. Initially, Edward had been compelled to restore Edith, as part of the settlement with Godwine. Now, even with Godwine dead, his sons remained powerful enough for Edward to consider it problematic to repudiate her again. Edward may have hoped for another opportunity in the future, perhaps in the natural course of events, but meanwhile it was probably at this time that serious consideration was given to an alternative solution. This solution was not the designation of William of Normandy as Edward’s heir, but the return to England of Atheling Edward ‘the Exile’, son of Edmund ‘Ironside’. This solution arose perhaps at the suggestion of Archbishop Stigand, who had been the chief intermediary of the settlement in 1052. He had been Cnut’s priest as early as 1020 and so was old enough to remember the exile of Atheling Edward and his brother Edmund back in 1017. The fate of the brothers for a period thereafter was unknown, but it was soon discovered that Edward at least was still alive, and after enquiries were made his location was established in Hungary. Subsequently, arrangements were set in motion to establish contact with him. The considerable lapse of time between the restoration of Queen Edith in September 1052 and the first attempt to contact Atheling Edward in autumn 1054 arose from the need to establish his exact location and situation, and to prepare the necessary groundwork for the embassy to be sent to secure his return.3
The reason for choosing this distant and unknown figure, though he had been born in England, in preference to Edward’s other relatives, Earl Ralph and Count Walter of the Vexin, was probably a mixture of his throne-worthy status as a king’s son and strong popular sympathy for his father in England. The latter, King Edmund ‘Ironside’, was still remembered in England as a great hero. It should also be remembered that Atheling Edward’s mother, Ealdgyth, widow of Sigeferth, was related to the f
amily of Earl Leofric of Mercia. In contrast, Earl Ralph was probably considered less suitable because of his descent through the female line and his French links, but also perhaps because of his poor military showing with the fleet in 1052. Count Walter of the Vexin, lacked his brother Ralph’s English connections and was busy ruling his own principality in France. All things considered, the prospect of Atheling Edward’s return as heir to the kingdom must have been popular generally, while King Edward and his earls no doubt saw the possibility of moulding this stranger to their own designs.4
It was in order to settle the succession crisis that, after careful preparation and at the first opportunity, a mission was sent to the Continent under Bishop Ealdred of Worcester in 1054. This skilled diplomat went to Cologne to request the assistance of the German Emperor Henry III in contacting the Hungarian king to seek the return of Atheling Edward from his European exile. This was a natural way to progress, since the English knew nothing of this distant land, while it lay on the borders of the Empire and acknowledged its overlordship from time to time. However, the time was not propitious, as the Emperor was currently in dispute with Hungary and despite Ealdred’s waiting almost a whole year at Cologne, nothing came of this embassy. The plan was not abandoned though, and following the death of Emperor Henry III in 1056 another attempt would be made.5
In the meantime, another of Cnut’s great earls, Siward of Northumbria, died at York early in 1055, leaving an infant son, Waltheof, as his heir. Siward had lost Osbeorn, his adult son by his first wife, in battle on 27 July 1054 during his campaign to install Malcolm Canmore on the throne of Scotland. A nephew, also named Siward, fell in the same battle, leaving young Waltheof as the earl’s only heir. Had it not been for this disastrous event, it is probable that Osbeorn would have succeeded his father in the earldom. Instead, at a council held on 17 March 1055, it was decided that a mere boy could not be expected to control the turbulent northern earldom. A firm hand was required and therefore Edward appointed Tosti, brother of Harold, to the earldom. This choice was Edward’s own, as it was for all earldoms, and he certainly seems to have looked on Tosti favourably. The king’s choice was undoubtedly supported by both Earl Harold and Queen Edith but it may have dashed the hopes of Earl Aelfgar of East Anglia.
As next in seniority among the earls, Aelfgar had perhaps seen himself as a potential candidate for Siward’s earldom. As Harold’s replacement as Earl of East Anglia, it must have seemed natural to him that he stood next in line for promotion to a major earldom. He had been loyal to the king in the recent crisis, even when forced to step aside to accommodate the return of Harold. In contrast, the inexperienced Tosti had held no major office and had been involved in the recent rebellion. No doubt Aelfgar, if promoted to Northumbria, would have been prepared to surrender East Anglia to Tosti in turn. It appears that he was not prepared to accept the king’s choice of Tosti ahead of him, and he would also have been aware that the promotion of Tosti would result in a significant accession of power to the Godwine family. Aelfgar therefore probably complained to the king, perhaps rather vociferously, and as a result found himself outlawed.6
Chronicle E states that Aelfgar was actually charged with treason, the others say he was outlawed without any guilt. The treason involved may have amounted to no more than disputing the king’s decision to appoint Tosti as Earl of Northumbria. This may perhaps explain the different assessments in the Chronicle accounts of the extent of Aelfgar’s guilt. Some may have considered the disputing of a royal decision as a fairly mild incident not warranting outlawry. There is no suggestion that Aelfgar intended to take any direct action against the king prior to his outlawry; he does not, for example, appear to have made any attempt to call out troops as Godwine had in 1051. It has been suggested that the treason might have arisen from the fact that Aelfgar had forged an alliance with Gruffydd of North Wales. Certainly his daughter, Alditha, was later married to the Welsh prince and the latter was to assist the earl following his exile. Such an alliance with the king’s enemy would provide ample justification for outlawry. Against this interpretation is the close link indicated by Chronicle E between Tosti’s appointment to Northumbria and Aelfgar’s exile, where both decisions were made in the same council. The perceived lack of justification in other versions of the Chronicle for Aelfgar’s outlawry would also seem to make an existing alliance with Gruffydd unlikely.7
The exile of Earl Aelfgar has been seen as an attempt by Harold and his family to encircle or eliminate their Mercian rivals. This seems unlikely as the decision to outlaw him seems to have received the full backing of King Edward rather than being a Godwine family affair. In addition, Earl Leofric appears to have made no attempt to protect or intercede for his son, as might be expected if this had been an attack on his family directed by the sons of Godwine. No source mentions any action by Earl Leofric in support of his son, although perhaps, after the events of 1051, he knew better than to oppose directly the king’s wishes. It has been suggested that Leofric was in failing health and that this was the reason for his inaction, but he was still able to lead his forces against the Welsh in 1056. The sparse details of this event make it difficult to tell what lies behind it. The best suggestion seems to be that Aelfgar was so vehement in his opposition to Tosti’s succession that he said something rash which caused Edward to outlaw him. Chronicle E’s mention of words of treason slipping out of his mouth against his will perhaps implies this.8
Earl Aelfgar followed the way of previous exiles and immediately began to plan his return. Indeed, he followed the path of Harold in 1051 and fled to Ireland, probably to Dublin, to recruit a mercenary fleet, which later went to Chester to await payment. However, he clearly felt this force of eighteen ships to be insufficient, and he decided to seek the assistance of Gruffydd ap Llewellyn of North Wales. The suggestion that the two men had an existing alliance is possible, but it was not without precedent for an exile to arrive in a foreign land with which he had no previous contact, seeking aid. Harold himself had already done this in 1051. Whether they were already allies or not, Earl Aelfgar arrived at Gruffydd’s court faced with the need to persuade the latter to aid him. It might seem that Gruffydd would need little excuse to invade England, but at this time he had other priorities. Gruffydd’s vital concern at this time was, and indeed had been for the past ten years, his contest with his rival for power in Wales, Gruffydd ap Rhydderch of South Wales. The timely arrival of Earl Aelfgar, with eighteen ships of Irish mercenaries, allowed him to make a raid into South Wales which finally succeeded in disposing of his great adversary. There is no doubt that Aelfgar took his Irish mercenaries to Wales and Welsh sources place Gruffydd’s attack on Hereford directly after the slaying of his namesake rival, suggesting that the two are linked. (It should be recalled that Gruffydd had previously sought the aid of Earl Swein in 1046 against his southern rival.) It might be argued that the Welsh sources fail to mention Aelfgar’s assistance in the slaying of Gruffydd of South Wales, but they similarly omit all mention of Aelfgar’s well-established role in the attack on Hereford. In return for this victory, which brought South Wales into Gruffydd’s hands at last, the Welsh king would surely have been only too willing to join Aelfgar and his Irishmen in a raid into England, with the additional prospect of booty to tempt him. The combined forces of Gruffydd and Aelfgar then invaded Herefordshire, where Earl Ralph was in power. The text of Domesday Book records the effects of their devastation in Archenfield. The selection of this target was probably dictated by the need to avoid attacking Mercia, where Aelfgar’s father, Leofric, was earl, but this attack on King Edward’s nephew may confirm that Aelfgar’s dispute was with the king himself.9
Earl Ralph gathered the forces of his earldom and met the combined forces of Gruffydd and Aelfgar outside Hereford. Ralph was defeated and the victorious army went on to sack the town itself on 24 October. Chronicle C attributes Earl Ralph’s defeat to his attempts to employ English troops in an unnatural role as cavalry, but it appears rather that he was m
erely unlucky or incompetent, as with the fleet in 1052. After all, English infantry forces had themselves suffered a series of defeats by Gruffydd in 1039, 1049 and 1052, and would be beaten again in the future. Nevertheless, this military disaster forced King Edward to summon assistance, from beyond Ralph’s earldom, to defend the border. This force was led by Earl Harold of Wessex, as the senior earl in England and also perhaps because Earl Leofric was not trusted to oppose his own son effectively. Indeed, the wording of the Chronicle that Harold’s army consisted of ‘a force . . . collected from very nearly all England’ may suggest the absence of Mercian troops.10
This was Harold’s first major campaign as a commander and he moved cautiously. He advanced a short way into Welsh territory, causing Gruffydd to fall back into South Wales to avoid battle with Harold’s superior forces. The latter then fortified Hereford against future attacks and opened negotiations with the invaders. This may seem a rather unspectacular start to Harold’s military career, but it gained the necessary objective of achieving peace. If he had risked an advance further into Wales, a disaster might have resulted in view of Gruffydd’s past successes, especially if Harold’s force indeed lacked the active backing of Mercian troops. It should be noted that it is Chronicle C, supposedly anti-Godwinist, which provides details of Earl Harold’s successful actions on this campaign.
The terms reached at the meeting between the two sides, held at Billingsley, are only revealed in the sources as they relate to England. Thus Aelfgar was restored to his earldom of East Anglia, but at the price of accepting Tosti’s retention of Northumbria. The suggestion that Gyrth had received part of East Anglia during Aelfgar’s exile, as stated by the Vita Eadwardi, seems unlikely. Presumably, Gruffydd of Wales also gained something, probably some border territory, possibly Archenfield. There are hints in the later Domesday Book of English lands which had fallen into Gruffydd’s hands, but, not surprisingly perhaps, nothing is recorded in the contemporary English sources. In return, Gruffydd must have agreed not to raid English territory in the future and to accept Edward’s overlordship. This must have seemed a poor return, as the potential threat he presented to England remained undiminished. However, the important thing at this point was to separate him from his dangerous alliance with Aelfgar and this had been achieved, at least for the present. The problem arising from Tosti’s succession to Northumbria had been resolved peacefully, and the equilibrium of the kingdom was restored. Such a statesmanlike arrangement achieved with minimal risk sits well with Harold’s patient character, as described in the Vita Eadwardi.11
Harold Page 12