Aethelric, Bishop of Sussex, was deposed by King William at a synod on 24 May 1070 for unstated reasons and unjustly, according to a number of sources. It has been suggested that his deposition resulted from the fact that Archbishop Stigand had consecrated him but Siward, Bishop of Rochester, who was also consecrated by Stigand, retained his bishopric without incident until his death in 1075. If the Bishop of Sussex was the same man as Aethelric the monk of Christ Church, he could have been deposed because of his family relationship to King Harold. Such a purely political deposition would be uncanonical and would explain the letter written to Archbishop Lanfranc by Pope Alexander II complaining that the case against Aethelric was defective and that he should be reinstated and tried canonically. The Pope’s request was ignored, and Aethelric languished in prison in Marlborough instead. Pope Alexander II may have been referring to Aethelric again in a further letter, in which he inquired anxiously about the fate of an imprisoned bishop whose liberation he had ordered. If this interpretation of the real political background to Aethelric’s deposition is correct, it would explain why he was not restored but instead had his deposition confirmed at an English Church council held under William in Winchester at Easter 1076.3
A more solid link between the two men is provided by the report of a trial on Penenden Heath in Kent, in around 1072 or 1075/6. Aethelric, the former bishop of Sussex, ‘a man of great age and very wise in the law of the land . . . was brought to the trial in a wagon’, to explain ancient legal practice. If this Aethelric was the same man as had been considered mature enough to be proposed as a candidate for the archbishopric in 1050–1, then he would certainly be ‘a great age’ some twenty or so years later. The knowledge of the laws which he was required to explain at Penenden Heath also fits well with Aethelric, described as a ‘man active in secular business’ by the Vita Eadwardi in 1050–1. In addition, as the business in dispute at Penenden concerned Canterbury lands appropriated by Odo of Bayeux, Earl of Kent, the presence of Aethelric would be particularly apt and he may have provided evidence of Canterbury’s ownership as well as legal advice.4
It would seem likely from this information that the two men were, in fact, one and the same. Although disappointed in his search for promotion in 1050–1, the monk Aethelric nevertheless bided his time. Subsequently, he was able to persuade King Edward to appoint him Bishop of Sussex, through the influence either of Archbishop Stigand, or of his relative Earl Harold. This area was, after all, the home territory of the family and an entirely suitable position for him, if lacking in the wealth of the archbishopric. He probably served in this position efficiently but without notice in the Chronicles until 1066, but after the conquest his relationship to King Harold became an embarrassment. Perhaps fearing his involvement in an attempt at a family restoration in 1070, King William deposed and imprisoned him. William cloaked his political actions, as always when dealing with the Church, in a religious guise, but in this case a patently thin one, which did not satisfy Pope Alexander in the least.
If accepted, this relationship can also provide an important key to one of the great puzzles surrounding the Norman Conquest. There apparently exists no contemporary English account describing Harold’s visit to Normandy in 1064 or considering the reasons behind it. If Aethelric, the candidate for the archbishopric, is the same person as the later bishop of Sussex then we may have a contemporary source – Eadmer of Canterbury’s later account of Harold’s visit to Normandy. Eadmer himself informs us that he consulted Bishop Aethelric of Sussex when composing his life of St Dunstan. Therefore, it is possible that Aethelric was also the source of Eadmer’s information on Harold’s visit to Normandy. If so then his statement that its purpose was to free family hostages should perhaps carry considerable weight as the information came from a source within the family itself.5
APPENDIX TWO
THE ENGLISH EARLDOMS UNDER KING EDWARD
The English office of earl originated from that of the ealdorman of King Alfred’s time, who was responsible for a single shire. The extent of the authority of these ealdormen grew with the expansion of Wessex and with the increasing sophistication of government, and by King Aethelred’s time many ealdormen controlled areas which included several shires. This tendency continued under Cnut and Edward when, under Scandinavian influence, these men first began to be called earls.1
The earls were the leading men of the kingdom, who enjoyed viceregal powers in local areas in return for providing support to the king. The success or otherwise of their relationship with the king and of their interrelations with each other formed the basis of the politics of King Edward’s reign.
In order to fully understand these relationships, it is important to know the extent of the earldoms held by these men and their relative size and location. Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult task at this period because of the relative paucity of the records. Table 1, overleaf, summarizes what little firm evidence exists as to the extent and location of the authority of King Edward’s earls, and on the basis of this evidence I have attempted to reconstruct the outlines of the English earldoms. This must remain speculative in many of its details, but nevertheless can shed considerable light on the background to King Edward’s reign. The three great earls inherited by Edward from Cnut, namely Godwine, Leofric and Siward, and their successors will be considered first, and thereafter Edward’s new earls.
NORTHUMBRIA
In 1042 Earl Siward certainly held authority both in Yorkshire and the rest of Northumbria to the north, as reflected by his role in the invasion of Scotland in 1054. This position is further confirmed by Gospatric’s writ, which refers to Siward’s authority in Cumbria also. It is known that Siward also held authority in Huntingdonshire sometime between 1050 and 1052, but since this county was held by Harold earlier in 1051, it seems likely that he governed this area only after the latter’s exile in 1051. The extent of the later authority of Tosti and Morcar, as recorded below, may imply that Siward also controlled Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, but although possible, this is not certain. He may have gained Northamptonshire, like Huntingdonshire, only after Harold’s exile in 1051.2
In 1055 the Chronicle states that Tosti succeeded to Siward’s earldom and it is known that Tosti’s authority encompassed not only Yorkshire and Northumbria, but also Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. In addition, the Chronicle account of the rebellion against Tosti’s rule in 1065 speaks of the insurgent Northumbrians and Yorkshiremen being joined by the men of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, surely an indication that Tosti’s earldom extended to these shires. It might be argued that these three shires were part of Edwin’s earldom, but the Chronicle clearly distinguishes them by saying that Edwin came to meet his brother and the men of these shires with the men of his earldom, which could not therefore encompass these shires. The Vita Eadwardi confirms Tosti’s larger influence when it speaks of ‘many slaughtered in the cities of York and Lincoln’ during the rebellion against his rule. Thereafter, the rebels ravaged Northamptonshire, also held by Tosti, in order to bring home their opposition to his rule.3
In 1065 Earl Morcar succeeded to Tosti’s authority, his rule extending certainly to Northumbria, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Morcar’s role in the defence of York in 1066 indicates his authority there although Simeon of Durham suggests that he allowed Oswulf to deputize for him in Northumbria itself. Morcar likewise defended Lincolnshire against Tosti’s attack in 1066, though he was assisted in this by his brother, Edwin. Although we cannot be certain, it seems likely that he also controlled Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, though not apparently Northamptonshire, which perhaps fell to Earl Waltheof probably in 1066, when King Harold may have appointed him earl with authority in this area.4
Table 1: The Earldoms of King Edward’s Reign
Shire Earl Dating Source
1. Kent Godwine c. 1042–50 ASW, 38
” 1051 JW 1051
” 1051 ASC D 1051
Harold c. 105
3–66 ASW, 35 and 39
2. Sussex Godwine 1051 JW 1051
3. Surrey Harold c. 1053–66 ASW, 40–2
4. Hampshire Godwine c. 1047–52 A-S Charters, No. CVII
” c. 1052–3 ASW, 111
Harold c. 1053–66 ASW, 85 and A-S Charters, No. CXIV
5. Berkshire Godwine c. 1045–48 ASW, 3
Swein 1051 JW 1051
Harold c. 1053–66 ASW, 5
6. Wiltshire [No data]
7. Dorset Odda 1051 ASC E 1051
Harold c. 1053–66 ASW, 1 and 2
” Pre-1066? DB, 1, 8
8. Somerset Swein 1051 JW 1051
Odda 1051 ASC E 1051
Harold c. 1060–6 ASW, 64–70
9. Devon Godwine c. 1045–46 A-S Charters, No. CV
Odda 1051 ASC E 1051
Harold c. 1060–6 ASW, 120
10. Cornwall Odda 1051 ASC E 1051
11. Middlesex Leofwine c. 1057–66 ASW, 88 and 89
Harold? c. 1065–6 ASW, 98
12. Hertfordshire Beorn c. 1045–9 ASW, 78 and 79
Leofwine c. 1057–66 ASW, 90 and 91
13. Buckinghamshire [No data]
14. Oxfordshire Swein 1051 JW 1051
Ralph c. 1053–7 ASW, 55
Gyrth c. 1057–66 ASW, 95, 103, 104
Aelfgar Pre-1062? DB, B1
15. Gloucestershire Swein 1051 JW 1051
Harold c. 1062 ASW, 115
” Pre-1066? DB, B1
16. Worcestershire Leofric c. 1042 A-S Charters, No. XCIV
” c. 1051–2 A-S Charters, Nos CXI and CXII
Aelfgar c. 1062 ASW, 115–17
Edwin Pre-1066? DB, C1
17. Herefordshire Swein 1043–6 A-S Charters, No. XCIX
” 1051 JW 1051
” 1051 ASC E 1051
Ralph 1055 ASC C/D 1055
Harold c. 1057–66 ASW, 49 and 50
” Pre-1066? DB, C12
18. Cambridgeshire Harold 1051 JW 1051
19. Huntingdonshire Harold 1051 JW 1051
Siward c. 1050–2 ASW, 59
20. Bedfordshire [No data]
21. Northamptonshire Tosti c. 1055–65 ASW, 62
22. Leicestershire [No data]
23. Warwickshire Aelfgar c. 1062 ASW, 115–17
Edwin Pre-1066? DB, 1, 6
24. Staffordshire Edwin c. 1065–6 ASW, 96
25. Shropshire Edwin Pre-1066? DB, 4, 1, 1
26. Cheshire Edwin Pre-1066? DB, S1
27. Derbyshire [No data]
28. Nottinghamshire Tosti c. 1060–5 ASW, 119
29. Rutland [No data]
30. Yorkshire Tosti c. 1060–5 ASW, 7 and 119
” 1065 ASC C/D/E 1065
31. Lincolnshire Morcar Pre-1066? DB, T4
32. Essex Harold 1051 JW 1051
” c. 1052–3 ASW, 84
33. Norfolk & Harold c. 1044–7 ASW, 13 and 14
Suffolk ” 1051 JW 1051
Aelfgar c. 1051–2 ASW, 15–18
” c. 1053–7 ASW, 18–22
Gyrth c. 1065–6 ASW, 23–5
MERCIA
In 1042 Earl Leofric probably held authority in Western Mercia with which his predecessors, Eadric Streona and Leofwine, appear to have been associated. The area he controlled certainly included a portion of the Welsh March as his brother Edwin was slain by the Welsh in 1039. It is clear that he did not control Herefordshire, which remained in other hands throughout this period. However, it seems that by 1055, if not before, Leofric controlled the rest of the Welsh border shires, as his son, Aelfgar, singled out Hereford for attack rather than oppose his father elsewhere. There is firm evidence that he controlled Worcestershire and, judging from the area governed by his successors, noted below, it seems likely that he also controlled Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and possibly Leicestershire.5
The Chronicle records in 1057 that Aelfgar succeeded to the earldom that his father had held. This indicates that his authority extended over an area similar to that of his father and his authority over Worcestershire and Warwickshire, at least, is confirmed by the sources. Again, as his successor, Edwin, inherited his authority, it seems likely that Aelfgar also held Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and possibly Leicestershire. The possibility that Aelfgar held some authority in Oxfordshire will be discussed below.6
No source records Earl Edwin’s succession to his father, but the extent of his authority is better reported. Thus we know from Domesday Book and elsewhere that Edwin’s earldom included Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and possibly Leicestershire. In addition, the account of King William’s reactions to the rebellions led by Earls Edwin and Morcar show him subduing them by constructing a castle at Warwick in 1068 and defeating their forces at Stafford the following year.7
WESSEX
In 1042 Earl Godwine certainly controlled a large area of southern England including Kent, Sussex and the region of Wessex incorporating, certainly, Hampshire, Devon and Berkshire, possibly Surrey and Wiltshire, and perhaps Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall. The dispute at Dover in 1051 confirms Kent as part of Godwine’s earldom and the fact that he drew the support for his restoration in 1052 from Kent, Sussex and Surrey establishes his strong links with the area. The possible diminution of Godwine’s area of authority in favour of his eldest son, Swein, will be discussed below.8
The exile of Earl Godwine in 1051 brought his earldom into King Edward’s hands and the latter subsequently granted the shires of Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall to his kinsman Earl Odda. On his restoration in 1052 Earl Godwine was returned his earldom ‘as fully and completely’ as he had held it before. This seems to imply that Earl Odda lost the south-western shires, which were presumably returned to Earl Godwine and were certainly held by his successor Harold, though it is just possible that the latter may have gained them after Earl Odda’s death in 1056.9
In 1053 Harold succeeded to his father’s earldom, which certainly included Kent, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon and probably Sussex, Wiltshire and Cornwall. This earldom was extended in 1057 on the death of Earl Ralph, when Harold added the shires of Gloucester and Hereford to those covered by his authority. It appears that Harold retained this entire earldom in his own hands until he became king, when it provided him with a secure base for his rule.10
This discussion of the three main earldoms indicates a fairly clear pattern of succession to these earldoms, with only minor alterations or amendments. This leaves only a fairly narrow region from East Anglia to the Severn estuary and the Welsh border available for the new earls created by Edward. Allocating the few shires in this region to the new earls in a way which matches the established facts is a more difficult task. In view of the sparse evidence, the suggested outline that follows must remain just that, although it may provide a useful framework for the political structure of Edward’s England.
THE OTHER EARLDOMS
King Edward appointed three new earls in the years immediately following his succession, namely Swein in 1043 and Beorn and Harold in 1045. Earl Swein certainly held Herefordshire from the start, as witness his invasion of Wales in 1046 and subsequent seizure of the abbess of Leominster. As John of Worcester mentions, it seems likely that Swein also controlled Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire. Although John also says Swein held Somerset and Berkshire in 1051, these must have been surrendered to him at a later date by Earl Godwine, because the latter held Berkshire between 1045 and 1048. In 1045 Swein may possibly have held Buckinghamshire and Middlesex instead. At this time Earl Beorn certainly held Hertfordshire, probably Huntingdonshire, and perhaps also Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Northampton-shire. Earl Harold certainly held Norfolk and Suffolk, and probably also Essex.11
The earldoms, 1045. (© Ian W. Walker)
The earldoms, 1050. (© Ian W. Walker)
The earldoms, late 1051. (© Ian W. Walker)
The earldoms, late 1052. (© Ian W. Walker)
The earldoms, 1056. (© Ian W.
Walker)
The earldoms, 1060. (© Ian W. Walker)
The earldoms, end 1065. (© Ian W. Walker)
The exile of Earl Swein in 1047 disrupted this arrangement and authority over his shires was probably temporarily shared between Harold and Beorn, as implied by one of the Chronicle reports of Swein’s return in 1049. Thereafter, the murder of Beorn, the renewed exile and subsequent restoration of Swein, and the appointment of King Edward’s nephew, Ralph, to an earldom in 1050 produced a new pattern of earldoms by 1051. The exact process involved in this transformation is obscure, but some suggestions can be offered.12
According to John of Worcester, in 1051 Earl Harold held not only Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, but also Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. He presumably gained the latter shires after the murder of Beorn as compensation for his surrender either to Swein or to Ralph of his share of Swein’s former earldom, perhaps Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire. Also according to John of Worcester, Swein was in control of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Somerset and Berkshire in 1051. This area consisted of Herefordshire, recovered from Earl Ralph who had established his Frenchmen in the shire, and Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, recovered from either Earl Ralph or Earl Harold. However, it also included Somerset and Berkshire, probably donated by Earl Godwine himself in order to persuade King Edward and the other earls that Swein’s restoration would be relatively painless. If these assumptions are correct, the earldom held by Ralph can now be deduced, by a process of elimination, as consisting probably of the remaining shires of Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. The Chronicle makes it clear that in spite of his loss of Herefordshire, on Swein’s return Ralph still held territory from which he raised troops to support King Edward.13
Harold Page 29