Harold

by Ian W. Walker

  The exile of the Godwine family in 1051 meant further upheavals, with both Swein and Harold deprived of their earldoms. Earl Harold’s earldom was granted to Aelfgar, son of Leofric, who certainly controlled Norfolk and Suffolk, and probably Essex and Cambridgeshire, though not apparently Huntingdonshire. Earl Ralph resumed control of Herefordshire, and probably Oxfordshire, from Swein and possibly gained Gloucestershire, though he appears to have surrendered Northamptonshire. The two shires lost by these men apparently passed to Earl Siward, perhaps as a reward for supporting King Edward in the recent crisis.14

  The restoration of the Godwine family a year later brought about further reorganization. Earl Harold recovered his earldom of East Anglia from Aelfgar, including Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire, but possibly with the exception of Huntingdonshire, which may have been retained by Siward. Earl Swein’s death later that year, before he could return to England, avoided any need to reorder Ralph’s earldom in the west, which he continued to hold after this point. Thereafter, Earl Aelfgar resumed control of Harold’s East Anglian earldom in 1053, when the latter succeeded to Wessex.15

  The next rearrangement of the smaller earldoms arose following the consecutive deaths of Earl Leofric and Earl Ralph in 1057. Earl Aelfgar succeeded his father in Mercia and surrendered his earldom of East Anglia, which was subsequently passed unchanged to Gyrth. In contrast, the shires of Ralph’s former earldom were redistributed to a number of other earls. As we have seen, Earl Harold certainly received Herefordshire and probably Gloucestershire. In addition, Earl Leofwine is known to have obtained Hertfordshire and Middlesex, but possibly also received Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. It would seem that Oxfordshire should also have fallen to Leofwine, but instead we have evidence that this shire was held by both Earl Aelfgar and Earl Gyrth. The solution to this difficulty would appear to be that Earl Aelfgar was granted Oxfordshire as his share of Ralph’s earldom, but this shire later passed to Earl Gyrth, either as the price of Aelfgar’s exile in 1058 or after his death in 1062.16

  This summary of the succession to earldoms and the variations in their extent and composition is by no means final, but represents simply an account which fits the available evidence. The resultant pattern of earldoms over this time is illustrated in the series of maps on pp. 237–8. In light of the scarcity of this evidence, other interpretations remain possible and there remain some difficulties, for example, the fate of Earl Odda’s earldom. Nevertheless, the framework presented is a valid one and has been employed to provide the background to this account of events in King Edward’s reign.

  ABBREVIATIONS

  AB Adam of Bremen – History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, ed. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959)

  ASC The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas, S.I. Tucker, rev. edn (London, 1961)

  ASW Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F.E. Harmer (Manchester, 1952)

  BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

  CMCS Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies

  DB Domesday Book, ed. J. Morris, 34 vols (Chichester, 1975–86)

  EER Encomium Emmae Regina, ed. A. Campbell (London, 1949)

  EHD I English Historical Documents, Volume I: c. 500–1042, ed. D. Whitelock (London, 1979)

  EHD II English Historical Documents, Volume II 1042–1189, ed. D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenway (Oxford, 1981)

  EHR English Historical Review

  Flor Florence of Worcester’s Chronicle, tr. J. Stevenson (Lampeter, 1989)

  JBAA Journal of the British Archaeological Association

  JRSAI Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland

  JW The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Volume II, ed. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk (Oxford, 1995)

  TEAS Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society

  TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

  VER [Vita Eadwardi Regis] The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster, ed. F. Barlow, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992)

  WC The Waltham Chronicle, ed. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1994)

  WJ The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, ed. E.M.C. Van Houts, 2 vols (Oxford, 1992 and 1995)

  WP Guillaume de Poitiers – Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant, ed. Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1952)

  NOTES

  INTRODUCTION

  1. E.B. Fryde, D.E. Greenway, S. Porter and I. Roy, Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn (London, 1986), p. 29 for the length of Harold’s reign. Only King Edmund ‘Ironside’ ruled for a shorter period at seven months twelve days.

  2. P. Compton, Harold the King (London, 1961) and H.R. Loyn, ‘Harold, Son of Godwine’ in 1066 Commemoration Lectures (London, 1966). F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London, 1979), D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964) and D. Bates, William the Conqueror (London, 1989) all feature Harold but only in relation to their eponymous subjects.

  3. P. Stafford, Unification and Conquest (London, 1989), pp. 83–100 for a new interpretation.

  4. H.R. Loyn, The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England 500–1087 (London, 1984), Chapters 4, 5, 6, F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1971), Chapter XV, pp. 545–56, D. Whitelock, The Beginnings of English Society, rev. edn (Harmondsworth, 1972), Chapters II, III, IV, and V, D. Crouch, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain 1000–1300 (London, 1992), pp. 46–50, Stafford, Unification, Chapters 8, 9, 11, Barlow, Edward, Chapters III, VIII for more detail on the social and political background.

  5. R. Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 52–4, R.A. Brown, The Normans and the Norman Conquest (London, 1969), pp. 78–84, P.A. Clarke, The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor (Oxford, 1994), pp. 162–3, E. John, ‘Edward the Confessor and the Norman Succession’, EHR, XCIV (1979), pp. 244–6 for the view of weak kingship and over-mighty earls. Barlow, Edward, pp. 286–8 for a more balanced view.

  6. ASC, pp. xi–xxiv for the references in this book cited by Chronicle version year date. Ibid., pp. xvii–xviii. EHD II, No. 1, p. 103, Barlow, Edward, p. xviii, The Norman Conquest, ed. R.A. Brown (London, 1984), p. 51, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. M. Swanton (London, 1996), pp. xxiii– xxviii for political bias in the different versions of the Chronicle. The new translation by Swanton appeared too late to be used in this book and I have relied on that of Whitelock et al. (see Abbreviations) throughout.

  7. JW for the references in the book cited by the year date. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk ‘The Chronicon ex Chronicis of “Florence” of Worcester and its Sources for English History before 1066’, Anglo-Norman Studies, V (1982), pp. 185–96, EHD I, p. 120 for the date and make up of this work. Unfortunately I have only been able to consult the single published volume of this new edition which ends in 1066. I refer to the older and less reliable translation of Flor for the years after 1066. The volume of the new edition covering the period after 1066 is now available.

  8. VER, Introduction for the probable date and purpose of this work. E.K. Heningham, ‘The Literary Unity, the Date and the Purpose of Lady Edith’s Book: “The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster”’, Albion, 7 (1975), pp. 24–40 for another view of its purpose. VER, p. xlv for the focus on Tosti; Ibid., p. xxi for this confusion of purpose; and Ibid., p. 89 for its quote.

  9. WJ, Volume I, pp. xxxii–xxxv, and pp. xlv–l, liii–liv for William of Jumieges’ chapters on Duke William’s claim and the Conquest, dated between 1067 and 1070.

  10. WP, pp. xii–xx. R.H.C. Davis, ‘William of Poitiers and his History of William the Conqueror’ in R.H.C. Davis (ed.), From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London, 1981), pp. 101, 104, Brown, Norman Conquest, p. 15 and EHD II, No. 4, p. 230 for the dating of this work. I have referred to Foreville’s French edition throughout but have added in parentheses references to English translations where these exist. Thus ( ) refers to the translation contained in Brown, Norman Conquest, pp. 15–41, and [ ] to that contained in S. Morillo (ed.), The Battle of Hastings (Woodbridge, 1996), pp. 3�
��15. A new English translation is now available in R.H.C. Davis and M. Chibnall, The Guesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, Oxford 1998.

  11. D.M. Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1985), p. 12, The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. F.M. Stenton (London, 1965), pp. 9–11, and Brown, Norman Conquest, pp. 173–173 for the background. Wilson, Bayeux, pp. 17–18, Stenton, Bayeux, pp. 9–24, and D.J. Bernstein, The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1986), pp. 114–15 for the allusiveness and difficulties of interpretation. The number of interpretations of Aelfgyva scene are legion. For example, Wilson, Bayeux, p. 178, Stenton, Bayeux, p. 10, Bernstein, Mystery, p. 19, J.B. McNulty, ‘The Lady Aelfgyva in the Bayeux Tapestry’, Speculum, 55 (1980), pp. 659–68 and R.D. Wissolik, ‘The Saxon Statement: Code in the Bayeux Tapestry’, Annuale Mediaevale, 19 (1979), pp. 81-8.

  12. Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, pp. 104–112 for the interrelationship of these three sources.

  13. C. Morton, ‘Pope Alexander II and the Norman Conquest’, Latomus, XXXIV (1975), pp. 362–82, and H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the Penitential Ordinance following the Battle of Hastings’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XX (1969), pp. 225–42 for later Papal concerns about the Norman Conquest, and EHD II, No. 81, pp. 649–50 for the text of the penance imposed on those participating in the Conquest.

  14. DB, Introduction to each volume. Brown, Norman Conquest, pp. 158–9, V.H. Galbraith, Domesday Book (Oxford, 1974), pp. 33-7 and H.C. Darby, Domesday England (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 3–9 for the process of its compilation. Galbraith, Domesday, pp. 175–9 for the clearest statement of this revisionist position, but it is evident throughout the text itself.

  15. T.J. Oleson, The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor (Oxford, 1955), pp. 35–47, A. Williams, ‘Land and Power in the Eleventh Century: The Estates of Harold Godwineson’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, 1980 (1981), p. 171, Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 16–20, 47, and Barlow, Edward, pp. xxi–xxii for the scarcity of charters and the problems of reliability among those which do exist.

  16. These sources are cited below where used.

  17. Brown, Norman Conquest, p. xiv, Stafford, Unification, pp. 101–102, M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England 1066–1166 (Oxford, 1986), p. 1 for the controversy about the impact of the conquest. Brown, Normans, pp. 121–4, Douglas, William, p. 169, Bates, William, p. 59, Barlow, Edward, pp. 107–8, 228, and John ‘Edward the Confessor’, pp. 241–67 for some assessments of the Norman claim.

  CHAPTER ONE

  1. VER, p. 11. (By permission of Oxford University Press)

  2. ASC C/D/E 997 to 1005. The few exceptions were for justifiable reasons. Thus in 1000 and 1005 the Viking fleets withdrew to replenish in Normandy and Denmark respectively. While in 1002 they were paid off by the English with 24,000 pounds of silver. ASC C/D/E 1006 for the great fleet and 1007 for the payment.

  3. ASC C/D/E 1008 and 1009.

  4. S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King Aethelred ‘The Unready’ 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980), p. 212 for Eadric and Brihtric as thegns witnessing royal charters from 997 to 1007 and 997 to 1009 respectively. ASC C/D/E 1006 for Aelfhelm’s murder and JW 1006 for Eadric’s involvement, supported by Keynes, Diplomas, p. 212. ASC C/D/E 1007 for Eadric’s elevation and Keynes, Diplomas, p. 213 for his marriage to Edith, which is recorded by JW 1009 in a way which suggests it had occurred before that date.

  5. ASC C 1009 for Wulfnoth Cild, ASC D/E/F 1009 and JW 1008 for his Sussex origins and ASC F1009 for him as father of Earl Godwine. JW 1008 does not indicate that Wulfnoth the Sussex thegn is the same as Wulfnoth father of Earl Godwine in JW 1007 but since he makes the latter Wulfnoth a nephew of Eadric Streona and Brihtric, there appears to be confusion at this point in his account. Keynes, Diplomas, Tables 7 and 8 for Wulfnoth as a witness in only four out of fifty-four diplomas. N. Hooper, ‘Some Observations on the Navy in Late Anglo-Saxon England’ in C. Harper-Bill et al. (eds), Studies in Medieval History for R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 206–7 for Kent and Sussex and the fleet. ASC C/D/E 994 Sussex was ravaged. ASC C/D/E 998 Danes ‘got their food’ from Sussex probably by plunder. ASC C/D/E 1006 they plundered ‘every shire of Wessex’.

  6. ASC C/D/E 1009. (Methuen and Co.)

  7. JW 1008 for Brihtric’s accusations as unjust and Keynes, Diplomas, Table 8 for Brihtric’s disappearance from among the witnesses of Aethelred’s diplomas in 1009. A. Williams, A.P. Smyth and D.P. Kirby, A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain (London, 1991), p. 65 for a late source suggesting Brihtric may have been murdered in Kent.

  8. EHD I, No. 129, pp. 593–6 and Keynes, Diplomas, p. 267 for the date, and the latter for Godwine as Wulfnoth’s son. M.K. Lawson, Cnut (London, 1993), pp. 77–8 considers Athelstan died on 25 June 1016. This fails to consider his brother Edmund’s prominence in the accounts of 1015 and 1016, and the fact that he and not Athelstan succeeded Aethelred on 23 April 1016. This latter would have been impossible if Athelstan, the elder of his sons, had still been alive then.

  9. DB Sussex, 11: 36. The other Sussex Compton was held in 1066 by Harold himself from King Edward. DB Sussex, 10: 23, this makes it less likely as the Compton concerned here.

  10. EHD I, No. 129, pp. 595–6 This sword may be the same as that sent to Offa by Charlemagne in 796 and recorded in EHD I, No. 197, p. 849, and therefore a great heirloom.

  11. Keynes, Diplomas, Table 1 where Edward began to witness his father’s diplomas from 1011, ASC C/D/E 1014 for Edward acting as ambassador for his father and VER p. 13 for this supposed oath.

  12. EHD I, No. 129, pp. 594–5, Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, pp. 181, 214, 227 provides summaries of the careers of these men and with P. Stafford, The East Midlands in the Early Middle Ages (Leicester, 1985), pp. 126–7 indicates Sigeferth and Morcar’s links to Aelfhelm.

  13. ASC C/D/E 1015. Stafford, Unification, pp. 67–8 and Stafford, East Midlands, pp. 126–7.

  14. ASC C/D/E 1015, JW 1015, Stafford, Unification, p. 68 and Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, pp. 126–7 for all this.

  15. ASC C/D/E 1015 and 1016. Stafford, Unification, p. 68 and Lawson, Cnut, p. 19.

  16. ASC C/D/E 1016 and VER, p. 9 for Godwine active in war.

  17. ASC C/D/E 1017 for the submission of all England to Cnut and K. Mack, ‘Changing Thegns: Knut’s Conquest and the English Aristocracy’, Albion, 16 (1984), pp. 375–80, Lawson, Cnut, pp. 83–6 and Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 42–6 for the purge.

  18. VER, p. 9 for Godwine, EHD I, No. 131, pp. 597–99 for this diploma in favour of Bishop Burhwold. EER, pp. 30–1 and Mack, ‘Changing Thegns’, p. 380 for this quote on loyalty. Loyalty is also among the qualities for which Godwine is praised in VER, p. 7, ASC C/D/E 1017, JW 1017 and EER, pp. 30–3 for Eadric’s execution.

  19. ASC C/D/E 1017 states that Cnut took ‘Wessex for himself’ but this probably represents an interim military government as in A. Williams, ‘“Cockles Among the Wheat”: Danes and English in the Western Midlands in the First Half of the Eleventh Century’, Midland History, 11 (1986), pp. 1–11 and Lawson, Cnut, p. 83. By 1018 he had appointed Godwine to control the central portion of Wessex. At this point Aethelweard still held the Western Shires of Wessex and possibly an Earl Sired ruled in Kent. Lawson, Cnut, p. 186 for the latter. EHD I, No. 131, pp. 597–9 for this diploma to Burhwold.

  20. ASC C/D/E 1019, ASC C 1023, VER, pp. 5–6, 11, and Lawson, Cnut, pp. 89–91, and p. 94 for these expeditions and Godwine’s promotion. S. Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’ in A. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut (Leicester, 1994), pp. 70–4, and pp. 84–7 for Godwine’s promotion linked to the 1023 visit to Denmark. Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, p. 144 for Godwine’s brothers-in-law.

  21. Walter Map – De Nugis Curialium, tr. M.R. James, Cymmrodorion Record Series 9 (1923), pp. 228–32, and Knytlinga Saga, tr. H. Palsson and P. Edwards (Odense, 1986), pp. 32–4 respectively for these apparently unrelated English and Danish legends.

  22. Lawson, Cnut, p. 188 considers that Godwine was
‘not the colossus of later years’ under Cnut but his prominent position in the witness lists of Cnut’s diplomas and his position as one of the three great earls on Cnut’s death suggest otherwise. Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, pp. 170–1 for Leofwine.

  23. ASC C/D/E 1021, Stafford, Unification, p. 73, L.M. Larson, Canute the Great, 995–1035 (London, 1912), pp. 146–7, Lawson, Cnut, pp. 174–5 for Thorkell’s fall. Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. P.H. Sawyer (London, 1968), p. 285–97 and Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 53, Table 4.1 for the charter or diploma evidence. Stafford, Unification, p. 74 reflects on the gaps in this evidence and suggests Cnut’s absence as the explanation. Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 54–8 and 82–4 for the other two earls. Lawson, Cnut, p. 186 and Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 76 for Earl Sired while the 1051 crisis shows Godwine governing Kent.

  24. ASC E/F 1026. Stafford, Unification, pp. 74–5 and Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 58–60, 62–4 for this rebellion, Lawson, Cnut, pp. 96–100 offers an alternative identification for the Ulf and Eilaf at Holy River. This relies on rather later sources and in any case does not invalidate the case for Godwine supporting Cnut, since Godwine did so even when the king subsequently had his brother-in-law, Jarl Ulf, killed at Roskilde. William of Malmesbury – The Kings Before the Norman Conquest, tr. J. Stevenson (Lampeter, 1989), p. 171 records Godwine’s presence with Cnut on this occasion but on what authority is unclear and it may simply be a confusion with earlier expeditions.